Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

Geoffrey Cousins Should Visit Us: A Plea from Timber Workers in Tasmania

By

High profile Sydney business man Geoffrey Cousins is running a campaign against a new pulp mill proposed for the Tamar Valley in Tasmania. His campaign appears to haver resulted in the federal government deciding to delay their decision by at least six weeks. But how much does Geoffrey Cousins really know about the forestry industry?

Timber Communities Australia extends a public invited to Mr Geoffrey Cousins to visit and meet with Tasmanian timber dependent families.

Tasmanian timber families are only to willing to share with Mr Cousins their pride in being part of Tasmania’s sustainable forest and timber industries and provide him with the opportunity to see both sides of the picture.

“Mr Cousins admitted on local talk back radio this morning that he had not meet with timber dependent communities and we what to help him over come this failing” Barry Chipman Tasmanian State Manager Timber Communities Australia said today

“So far he has only heard outrageous claims, and we are very willing to assist him in seeing for him self just where the proposed pulp mill will be and how well our forests are managed”.

Mr Cousins Insurance Company sponsors the WWF Climate Change program, and this will be an opportunity to learn how Tasmanian forests are removing greenhouse gasses and that the proposed pulp mill will reduce greenhouse gasses.

“If Mr Cousins is prepared to meet with both sides, we are convinced he will be a supporter not a critic of the proposed pulp mill”

As a businessman he should know how important it is for Australia to reduce its deficit in trade of timber products.

“The Bell Bay Pulp Mill has the potential to reduce this balance of trade deficit by $400 to $450 million each year (20 to 25%).”

TCA would endeavour to assist him to visit Five Mile Bluff the site of the ocean outfall, as we wonder if he is aware that the Federal Department of Environment and Water “has not identified any likely significant impacts on the marine environment in Commonwealth waters from the proposed pulp mill.” [Recommendations Report Paragraph 36]

TCA also wonders if he is aware of how ECF pulp mills and for example wineries, co-exist in harmony in other parts of the world including France, Portugal and British Columbia, in fact right around the world with no adverse impacts.”

“We hope Mr Cousins will accept our invitation before he further puts at risk the social and economic well being of timber dependent families throughout Tasmania.” Mr Chipman concluded.

Already an Aluminium Smelter in the ‘Pristine’ Tamar Valley: A Blog Post by Graham Young

By

If you were planning a pulp mill there could hardly be a better spot [than the Tamar Valley in Tasmania]. What’s more, the area is so settled that only an idiot, or someone who hadn’t even bothered with the minimum of research, could call it “pristine”…

Read the full blog post here which shows that the proposed site for the pulp mill in Tasmania is next to an established aluminium smelter in the supposedly pristine Tamar valley: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002259.html

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory – a note from Marc Morano

By

[Note: This is devastating new climate research submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, which continues to show how the entire man-made global warming fear movement is “falling apart.” See earlier EPW Blog: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Breaking News:

Excerpt: Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.” The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

Michael Asher

August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the “consensus view,” defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of “90% likely” man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of “thousands of scientists” involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of “lead authors.” The introductory “Summary for Policymakers” — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually written by scientists — are edited to “ensure compliance” with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

‘Little future’ for APEC without ‘real action’ on climate change?

By

Article in The Australian:

Climate change can’t bog down APEC

NEXT week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum meeting in Sydney won’t be its last, but if we accept Kevin Rudd’s view of the world then, like John Howard, its days may be numbered.

The press release accompanying Rudd’s speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs on Monday bore the headline, “APEC’S Future: Confront the Economic Challenge of Climate Change” . According to Labor’s Great Helmsman, if it fails to embrace “real action” on climate change, APEC has “little future”.

What does real action mean? To quote Rudd: “APEC must set concrete emissions targets, as it languishes behind the European Union and the G8 on tackling the economic impact of climate change.”

This is an interesting comparison, for reasons I will come to in a moment. But we already know that setting action plans in concrete is not APEC’s modus operandi.

China and the other Asian developing economies don’t want anything to do with Kyoto-style targets, which would cripple their economic growth. Bringing their living standards up to those of the West is their greatest economic challenge, not climate change.

A leaked draft of the Sydney Declaration to be released at the end of next week’s APEC meeting speaks only of a long-term aspirational target for emissions reductions. So presumably one of the early actions of a Rudd government will be to withdraw from APEC, an institution with little future………….