Under a double page headline ‘Dire warning on rising sea levels’, South Australia’s Sunday Mail had what Paul Williams described as an “extraordinary article on climate change”. Here’s his critique:
“On the right hand page are six maps of the Australian continent, showing the coastline as it is today, and as it would look if the sea level rose 100 metres, 200 metres etc up to 500 metres. In small print, at the bottom of the caption next to the first map, is the disclaimer “Readers should note this was done as part of a scientific experiment, not as a prediction”. Nevertheless, the graphic has a powerful visual impact.
On the left hand page headlined in the print version, “Hard decisions needed”, the accompanying article begins “An apocalyptic prophecy of an Australia under water shows Adelaide would be one of the first places to disappear in a catastrophic sea level rise.” So straight away readers are given the impression that the graphic is an actual prediction, despite the disclaimer on the next page.
The “hard decisions” of the headline are explained by Dr Graeme Pearman, who is described as a Climate Institute Australia adviser and former CSIRO head of atmospheric research.
He says we will have to decide between protecting the coast with breakwaters or letting the coastline recede naturally. Dr Pearman states that sea levels have already risen 20 cm “with global warming”, and are expected to rise half a metre more over the next century. But there’s more, “if Greenland goes, it will rise by 7m”, and “if Antarctica went as well it would rise by 80m”.
Dr Pearman concedes it is unlikely that Antarctica will “go” during the next few thousand years, but the article leaves the impression that Greenland is quite likely to “go”.
This article is blatant sensationalism, with a few facts thrown, which do not support the sensational claims, and no balance. Why would the Sunday Mail publish such an article? Does the last paragraph give a clue?
“He (Dr Pearman) called for urgent action to join global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Australia and the US are the two main nations which have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce such emissions.”
This looks like part of a process to sway public opinion towards Australia ratifying the Kyoto protocol.
If the article had said that Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto targets anyway, whereas many of the countries that have ratified Kyoto are NOT meeting their targets, I think most people would quite sensibly shrug their shoulders and say, “so why should we sign?” Add to that the fact that Kyoto can have no measurable effect on climate, yet will cost Australia jobs and hurt our economy, and there seems no reason at all to ratify Kyoto.
Of course there is a political aspect to all this. Labor has a policy that it will ratify Kyoto.
Is that why the Sunday Mail and the Advertiser are running a scare campaign, to help boost the prospects of Federal Labor?“
Maybe, or perhaps the newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch who is now concerned about global warming, is just really concerned about global warming? But is it good journalism?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Is a scare campaign worse than a conspiracy, or is it the other way around? Or would we be better off with some evidence based opinions rather than hysterical partisan rhetoric?
I will be interested to read the dismissal of the Murdoch press by environmentalists – nobody likes to be labelled a “shill”
Isn’t the “Climate Instute” basically set up and Organised by the Labour State Governments to push the climate issue independantly of the Federal Goverenment. And doesn’t the fact that its based on Al Gore film and dramatic “stories” about sea level rise say everything about its scientific credentials – it purely and simply a PR vehicle for political ends. Not that there anything wrong with that, but we cant expect just science from it, and we should be honest and forthright about what it actually is.
“purely and simply a PR vehicle for political ends”
That sounds a bit like the IPA, don’t you think, detribe?
I find this post totally disingenuous and a smear campaign by Paul. Blame the paper too for cobbling together unrelated facts and predictions. It’s about as bad as 60 minutes cobbling sound bites together. Or the ABC which you’ve all been banging on about. But the post doesn’t present that way – there’s the implication that “Pearman” orchestrated it or the Labor party – DISGUSTING.
I saw the map too elsewhere – was being portrayed as “art” or something – it was from some dude in the USA !
Blame the paper for shit reporting. Why be surprised – the press runs hot and cold all the time with climate change – you’ll have a pro article then some rant from an attack dog, retired geologist or misc shill almost back to back. (And do we ever see a post here on contrarian porkies – no to you have to hop over to Tim Lambert for a critique.)
Or El Nino doom followed by how bad forecasts are. You’d think the press would be only interested in selling papers with sensationalist stories (unless you were totally cyncial).
Blame Paul Williams for spinning it too. Shonks !
And oh Paul – I’m glad to hear that you haven’t been beating your wife and that was all a mistake.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that at the foot of the article was a “link” to the ALP policy article. (“Beazley’s vow, Page 8”).
I don’t see how this is a smear campaign by me. I just commented on what I saw. And I don’t have any political affiliations either, although I am conservative by nature. (Raising teenagers will do that to you.)
All the punter are in on the scare campaigns:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/scorchedearth/unholy-trinity-set-to-drag-us-into-the-abyss/2006/10/15/1160850808623.html
Great reading on the Unholy Trinity threatening to drag us into the abyss:
* climate change
* peak oil
* water shortages
Even the PM keeps talking of climate change lately.
We’ll all be DOOMED!!!!!!!!!
Or maybe it’s just fashionable as the precautionary principle is applied to opinion forming: the ‘oh, but what if I’m wrong…? .. an abyss is an abyss whether manmade or not…’, school of public stance making, or Why did the koala fall out of the tree?
Thing that struck me was that the map started with its minimum inundation at 100m, when the highest the expert predicted was 70m. And is there enough water in the entire solar system, let alone the globe, to produce a 500m increase in sea level heights.
What next? Global warming used to prove Genesis? With that much water you might get an ark to rest on top of some high mountain. Mind you, building an ark in case would probably be more sensible than signing Kyoto.
…..and people wonder why so many intelligent people are sceptical or complete non believers……
Sea level is rising – we are only debating the cause. Since the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago (20kyBP), it has risen 120-130 metres. At that time, Australians could walk through the desert dunes to Tassie. Most of the ice was piled on northern continents – a kilometer of ice over the site of Detroit – and it had gone by 7kyBP. That rise destabilised the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which, unlike East Antarctica (whith most of the remaining ice) and Greenland, is now perched on a submerged shelf. Most rise in the past 7ky is likely to have been from the (continuing) collapse of the WAIS. Some would be from thermal expansion of the oceans too; new work tells us that, during the past 7ky, grand maxima of solar activity (like that experienced in the past century) remain very rare.
From Comrade Pinkxacoff’s post’s web link:
“Solutions require that we move beyond narrow national self-interest, take a global view and place our society and economy on a genuinely sustainable footing. Sustainability, “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, encompasses the entire basis upon which global society operates, not just the environment. It requires realigning our ethical framework, moving away from the winner-take-all individualism which has created so many of the “commons” problems, to a more co-operative individualism, where managing the global and local “commons” is paramount.”
How do the hard righties here feel about that -“co-operative individualism” – too much socialism ?
How NOT to Become a Global Warming Skeptic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
If the Unholy Trinity is
climate change
peak oil
water shortages (in a continent with over 50,000l of fresh water per capita per day!!)
then the answer is obviously
Nuclear Power
I might be fine with it Luke – if I had the faintest idea what it meant.
Paul – I’m OK with that (but most won’t be)!
Jim – it means you can’t do what you bloody well like without some consideration.
Lets just recall my earlier calculation that, at the current rate of ice melt, it would take 14,000 years for Greenland to “go” as mentioned in the ‘Tiser.
This sort of stuff is clearly designed to distract the mediocre so they don’t get in the way of people actually doing something.
And there is no finer problem for a spivocrat than a virtual problem like global warming. Because either way, they can still be seen to succeed. If it never shows up they can claim that it is because they fixed it. And if it does show up they can portray them selves as visionaries who were not given sufficient resources to fix problem.
As Candide said, “that is all very well but there is work to be done in the garden”.
Ah!
Consideration for others?
Sure – there isn’t a society in existence in which individual liberty transcends all responsibility to the community. Complete anarchy only appeals to complete anarchists.
But in order for rational decisions ( which impact on all of us ) from government , we need rational debate and The Advertiser didn’t make a worthwhile contribution.
Altruistic exaggeration ( whether it’s Islamic terrorism OR AGW ) just jades the fair minded ; as Toby noted above.
Paul , I’m with you as well in respect of nuclear power,though I haven’t seen a lot about peak oil since petrol prices started to fall.
Might this have something to do with it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/business/worldbusiness/06oil.html?ex=1315195200&en=aedad2b99f228e40&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Probably not entirely welcome news in many quarters.
The odd thing is, while the papers are scaring people about climate change
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20581969-5006336,00.html
they are also supporting a growth in population to maintain the State’s lifestyle
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20577378-5006336,00.html
Apparently they are unaware of the inherent contradiction
Paul,
I am with you on this. The “Ragvertiser” has really excelled itself.
Of course the journos are too dim to realise that a child can produce the same lines by using an atlas of maps with contour lines. In Australia we have the benefit of all maps being related back to the Australia Height Datum AHD.
We dont need some academic from the USA using satellite and shuttle images, to produce what is basically already available. Thats assuming of course that doing so has any redeeming merit beyond the Ragvertisers latest campaign.
Perhaps it says more about the disadvantages of being a one paper town.
IF this truly serious where are good online maps of Australia [world] online showing expected impacts from rising sea levels in 1m steps.
These with the range eta predictions would at least let those living lowlands get more interested in moving from the beaches.
Every generation has tidal wave or flood predictions persuading people to sell at below market value… was Adelaide not so long ago.
Polpak
If you are concerned about it, all you have to do is go and buy the latest maps for your area of interest and yes some may even go down to 1m contours, ie sea level lines.
Whether or not they are on-line or not I dont know.
I can’t believe anyone could get so hung up with what’s stuck inside the covers of a Sunday dreadful. One thing this thread proves, Paul, Jen and a few others haven’t got much to do in their spare time.
Reading between the lines, some Sunday papers have to be given away as thinking people are switched of f anytime past noon Saturday. Beyond that its just hopefuls looking for suckers hence the headlines. It’s much easier finding substance in repeats or whatever on ABC.
Having said that I’m most interested in our rising sea levels and life at the margins.
Enviro-mentals is the modern form of media shock and awe, years ago it was collectrive horror at more personal style of indiscretion eg “Vicar caught with organ player” or “sailor found on buoy”
Map contours are always expressed as height above sea level. As the sea is always going up and down (tides and wind) it is a mean sea level that is determined as the base.
And yet, Gavin, you seem to be spending time here when you could be watching Playschool. Don’t you have anything better to do?
Paul; this blog and your threads are becoming the best entertainment in recent years compared to anything in the media including the ABC.
Paul, winner takes all in this climate game.
rog: lets add, we read all the contour heights looking up hill just in case we get into some steep country.
Some more adaptation for you Paul, this time a suggestion from Bill Heffernan:
http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1766574.htm
Should we be concerned that the Climate Institute is funded by a donation (believed to be $10 m) from the Poola Foundation (Tom Kantor Fund). This fund is in the memory of one of the extended Murdoch Family.
Should News Limited declare this interest when running a story featuring the Climate Institute or groups such as the ACF and FOE that are also supported by the fund?
Will knowing this funding, impact on our comments?
Anyway all very boring – meanwhile back at the science:
The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London, and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (Belgium) reveal that stronger westerly winds in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, driven principally by human-induced climate change, are responsible for the marked regional summer warming that led to the retreat and collapse of the northern Larsen Ice Shelf.
“Driven principally by human-induced climate ghange”.
Another bland statement, with no science that I can see. May be, if you shout louder, we’ll all believe you.
Sorry, did i miss Australias Ann Coulter admitting she is a coal industry funded shill, in this entirely derivative post?
I guess vested interests are taken for granted in this RightThink echo chamber, just like in the Coal-ition government.
That’s right Hasa – you can publish any old thing in the Journal of Climate. It’s just like writing for a newspaper – they take any old cobblers.
you can play flood here (to a maximum of only 14 m)
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-34.6027,138.5088&z=8&m=0
Steve, apparently all that water is already being used.
“However, environmentalists are calling for a reality check, saying that although only 1 per cent of water from Australia’s northern rivers is used in agriculture it does not mean the water is spare.”
Is it a coincidence that modeling used for flora and fauna ‘management’, is critisised for its lack of accuracy and that the ‘inputs’ a fraught with anomalies?
Is it a coincidence that F & F management has forced perception, as THE basis to its science?
Why do elements of the media show so much attention to global warming, however, nothing in comparison when it comes to a questions like, “How many species are/were threatened with extinction due to the 2003 wildfires?”
I see people trying to make links between global warming statements and human induced theory. Where is the equivalent attention being paid to human induced eucalyptus forests due to human induced fire regimes?
I see the hole in the ozone, being less of a concern than the holes in environmental science. Look at ‘on the ground’ environmental management, such as F & F or vegetation reporting methodology and witness the crooked, smelly ‘inputs’.
I hope forcing government staff to be silent, via their employment contracts, or the threat of losing their job, will not keep them silent forever.
Stewie: What exactly are you getting at here?
1) “I see people trying to make links between global warming statements and human induced theory. Where is the equivalent attention being paid to human induced eucalyptus forests due to human induced fire regimes?
2) “I see the hole in the ozone, being less of a concern than the holes in environmental science. Look at ‘on the ground’ environmental management, such as F & F or vegetation reporting methodology and witness the crooked, smelly ‘inputs’
Gavin, I’ll try to explain myself as best I can.
“I see people trying to make links between global warming statements and human induced theory. Where is the equivalent attention being paid to human induced eucalyptus forests due to human induced fire regimes?
Gavin, what I am trying to say, is that the disproportional amount of attention paid to the ‘human induced’ element of global warming debate, is not paid to the ‘human induced’ element of bushfire debate. Both these issues, if as presented, are extremely serious in nature. A human induced element, underlies both these issues and it is very important, as I see it, for the public to understand this.
Human induced global warming proponents, the media and many supporters have, in the last decade, dissected, extrapolated, theorized, discussed in detail, any and every skeric of information pertaining to AGW, in a most public and sustained way. We have seas rising at alarming rates, polar bears disappearing, glaciers melting and other alarming predictions.
We don’t have this same, sustained attention given to wildfires. Why? We have serious threats to our water supplies, flora and fauna species facing extinction, humans dying, massive damage to public/private assets and of course, a massive contribution to ‘global warming’, from the millions of tons of vegetation that can burn. And all of this, potentially, from one wildfire. Will it be this year, next year or in ten?
I can’t help but think, that to focus on the ‘human induced’ element in the AGW debate, that this is in fact, allowing those referred by many as left wing extremists, in the media, NGO’s and bureaucracies, to work public policy and perceptions towards their ideals of governance, through scaremongering and ‘human induced’ public panic.
On the other hand, to play on the ‘human induced’ elements of wildfire, may conflict with these same left-wing extremists ideal, to promote perceptions of pristine environment and ‘manageable’ forests, through ecology.
Human rights campaigns, promoting the ‘noble savage’ perception, native title claims and perceptions of Aboriginals being environmental stewards, without equal, may have become a bit difficult to portray. Rather, many may have seen Aboriginals as environmental opportunists that caused irreversible damage, to large extents of this country, extinguishing species, leaving us, with an environmental nightmare, that will be on-going for sometime yet.
Gavin, have you seen the amount of dissection, extrapolation, theorising, discussion in detail, of any and every skeric of information pertaining to wildfire, in a most public and sustained way, with the same veracity as what has been done with AGW?
Which issue, AGW or catastrophic wildfire, is unequivocally a reality?
Should we take out a class action against the aboriginals?
“I see the hole in the ozone, being less of a concern than the holes in environmental science. Look at ‘on the ground’ environmental management, such as F & F or vegetation reporting methodology and witness the crooked, smelly ‘input
Since the 1980’s, when flora and fauna ‘experts’ arrived in our bureaucracies, it seems environmental management has become an administrative process, with science a second fiddle.
Here, where I live in East Gippsland, the science of flora and fauna management, is largely being driven by perception. The perception is being generated through an inaccessible cliché within govt. departments. This cliché, within these departments, deal with information that very few, if anybody, can verify. It seems AGW proponents are similarly inaccessible.
Putting it frankly, many F & F species, especially those in mountainous terrain, are unknown quantities. Statistical data that forms the crux of many species management plans, is guess work , ah, sorry, extrapolation. The extrapolation that is used, like I hear is claimed so often in the global warming debate, are often cherry picked, worst case scenarios. Example, owls.
We have owls in our neighbourhood, which have significantly contributed to a ‘Special Protection Zone’ being declared. One, the Sooty Owl, is said to be ‘endangered’ and under the flora and fauna guarantee act, has had its own ‘recovery’ plan drawn up.
I have extensive experience, in the type of forests this bird is found and in fact, have heard its night cries, many times around my camps at night, over extensive areas, over many years. I know from experience, that there is no way in the world, that any body to date could have counted many of these birds. They are nocturnal, can fly off (of course) and are elusive. The terrain it lives in is often rugged and slow, for humans, to transverse. These birds would hear or see you well before you got close to them and fly off silently. They seem common to me but hard to observe directly.
The ecological expert comes along and through administrative magic, can determine, shock, horror, it’s endangered!
How? Because, they have only ‘officially’ counted a few. The current science standard, seems to say that few ‘official, expert’ sightings, equals ‘endangered’. Consulting fees, land tenure changes and who can and who can’t go into the owls ‘protected’ territories follows.
These flora and fauna scientists, have the freedom to underestimate, over-estimate species populations, habitat extent and other ecological parameters that, conveniently, many would suggest, the general public even if they tried, could not verify.
Many species that form the basis of endangered or similar threatened listings, often have similar traits, which essentially make it impossible for anybody in the public to verify. They may include nocturnal behaviour (owls), nomadic behaviour (frogs), highly illusive (bandicoots), generally unobservable (mountain river fish) or live in remote, rugged terrain (many ground plants).
These greenies in our bureaucracies, who have been passed off as flora and fauna scientists, have essentially had a field day over the past decade or so, filling in knowledge gaps and extrapolating data, according to their perceptions and political desires.
It is here that you will find crooked, smelly ‘inputs’, that are being passed off as science. This type of information is then used extensively, in many environmental management plans, including those, that have influence on fuel reduction programs.
Similar claims of crooked ‘inputs’, are being made regularily by those who are not convinced that ‘human induced’ global warming is occurring.
Stewie; although I can relate to most of what you say here, I think I would put it a different way.
Wild fire as it happens is one of my big interests and weather we like it or not it is another complex issue. My own input has been wild too. However there is some hope now with the Bushfire CRC etc working through it all on our behalf.
This week we had the release of some science at last on how human bushfire victims perish out in the open. This problem was first explained to me by US made firefighting film back in the 1950’s. At that time my employer was about to move me into industrial furnace control. Emissions became my bread and butter for a while. Bushfire science is slowly catching up.
Stewie: My input here is often based on an association with some practice and that can include the public service. What is missing for me is based only on the most recent trend to restrict all public service activity to core business i.e. policy! Things are so streamlined everywhere now there is little time for details like owls hidden in the bush. BTW Stewie owls come out for pet guinea pigs.
Public policy in practice is often an ass. However we can change it and I try often like today.
Stewie; This bit I must object too “These greenies in our bureaucracies, who have been passed off as flora and fauna scientists, have essentially had a field day over the past decade or so, filling in knowledge gaps and extrapolating data, according to their perceptions and political desires”
I know from experience most public servants have very little room to move policy on their own. It’s only at the top where much happens politically or personally. Even this end is tasked by parliament.
As for alarmists, everybody is flat out covering their………….. you name it all the time even the media. That a big clue.
As far as I can see, every input to government must be recorded
East Gippsland; now that’s old APM country which could explain some of Stewie’s somewhat dismayed rhetoric. Perhaps I should ask what he does out in the bush. But let’s push on with my response to his lengthy reply (thanks).
Stewie; My folks were very experienced in the bush and I grew up in what some call redneck country in regards to our rural politics so I know the language well enough. However it’s never been a mystery to me how your “greenies” got into the role of “government” or even who they are.
But let’s dwell on this yarn for a moment. My father was a boy chainman with a team of foresters surveying the wilds in Tasmania. Some nights in camp their dogs shivered with fear at a yelp in the dark and these poor beasts would try to hide in a gumboot. However these lonely men never saw what it was but they knew something but not a devil cleaned out their food tins overnight. I have no doubt after many scientific surveys the tigers are gone forever.
Scientific models I found out to my surprise recently for concepts such as climate change must start out as worst case scenarios. Risk management on the other hand I believe depends on your experience. Those who think they have it don’t say much which leaves the door open for the media and some would be politicians. The rest as they say becomes history.
Except Stewie I have known one or two government scientists and I’m constantly thinking; are they told what to do? The answer sometimes comes from a writer, Rosslyn Beeby for instance whose official task I reckon it is to find out. This brings up another question Stewie. Are they left or right wing?
A note about “Greenies”: As an amateur “Environment” campaigner after being squeezed out by the “Victorian Left” way back I found I could easily recruit interest in the Australian “bush” from where ever I stood, on the street, on the beach, in the factory or in some stranger’s lounge room. I could rely various individuals doing their own thing, lawyers, engineers, teachers, students, politicians, journalists, housewives even bikie gangs. Only the unions let me down. These folk and many many more started a movement that went on and on. Bob Brown came later.
There was a mistaken perception in several quarters that a socialist left owned everything to do with our environment reform. I’m saying here that it was driven by people from across the spectrum and our social divisions over environment issues started in the unions.
Recall how a F111 stopped dam building down the Franklin when Bob Hawk was in power, also how Malcolm Frazer stopped sand mining earlier on Frazer Island. Politicians on both sides went to the brink in each case, the media had a field day but I think we all got over it. I hope it’s the same with climate change.
Stewie: Although I got a lot out of your reply we must both note that all governments now have a mandate to protect diversity in whatever form,regardless of public input because it can be haphazard at times. The agencies we have indirectly setup can behave and use the same logic as tax collectors. That’s the irony. They must be aware now though; miles of red tape won’t stop bushfires.
Its still a learning process on both sides of the fence.
I remember when i was first aware of climate change likelihood in the 70s as a result of having aware neighbours and reading New Scientist.
The outcry against these types of ‘non-predictions’ reminds me of the reaction when we tried to raise discussion on climate change : we were alarmist, un-scientific, ratbag, single issue do-gooders.
30 years later many of the people who derided us are now saying climate change as a result of human activity is a reality, but the worst case scenarios are alarmist etc.
What we do know is that the climate change we are experiencing now is a delayed reaction by nature to what we were doing say 30 years ago. The next 30 years will be interesting and uncertain – thats all we can say with any certainty. Think about this – what is the value of the Australian coastal real estate that will be flooded if the sea level ony rises 1 foot in 100 years. A fair bit I reckon.
Air travel also has other consequences – when unburnt hydrocarbons come out of a plane at 30,000 feet they tend to fall back to earth. In addition to boosting shampoo sales, some of them land on the leaves of the remnant global vegetation where they interfere with the photosynthesis process at the level of the stomata on the leaves. This is a contributing factor in the poor health of global forests.
The Men of the Tress ‘carbon neutral’ scheme counteracts the effect of car emmissions by car owners funding tree planting, If you apply the same logic and methodology to aeroplane emmissions, the results are incredible.
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON THE PLANET TO PLANT THE COUNTERACTING TREES.
It is time that we all started to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. We may not be able to accurately quantify climate change, however we do know its real and that it is changing our habitat in ways that effect natures capacity to support us.
The knockers can say thats alarmist – I call it reality. But then they probably use planes and drive to work. I don’t fly, and I don’t own a car.
First, Jennifer or Paul Williams, if this post is to long or off post (to much) scrap it and maybe you can email it to Gavin. Thanks.
Gavin I can only minimize the rhetoric, by a long explanation, via personnel experience.
I have seen, how flora and fauna ‘scientists’, not only ‘cherry pick’ broader elements, of a species specific issue, such as habitat extent, habitat potential, population indicators, historic data but also cherry pick, its basic ‘everyday’ characteristics. They like missing ‘bits’ or ‘inputs’ in their reporting. People have similar criticisms of much of the global warming theory.
The f &f scientists produce reports (complete with missing ‘bits’), that are then referenced by people (community groups, media, political lobby groups), who are not aware of the missing ‘bits’.
‘Bits’ missing, then enables the/other ‘scientists’ (or politicians) to draw conclusions, on the broader ‘management’ issues, concerning that species and adjust them accordingly, to suit the ‘mathematical’ dominos affect, the incorrect base values (data) dictates. Using this ‘missing bits’ method you can manufacture ‘worst case scenarios’.
Have you heard of the ‘endangered’, Spotted Tree Frog (Litoria Spenceri)?
This frog was put up (in a Parl. Inquiry, 1989) as being under threat of ‘local’ extinction, due to eductor gold dredge activity, in the Goulbourn River.
I at this time, had a fair amount of experience in the mountains and had done a little dredging myself.
How had this frog survived in such a harsh and often ‘unforgiving’ environment? I asked myself.
As an aside, with your family background Gavin, I suspect you know what I mean about the ‘unforgiving’ environment. It is not often experienced by your average Joe, who is looking for 25deg. days, blue skies and a nice spot on a crystal clear river, to pitch a tent and catch a trout. Nothing wrong with that but it could initiate a narrow perspective.
You would be aware of the ‘unforgiving’ bit, when it’s pissing rain for days; leaches everywhere; raging, dirty rivers, with rocks ricocheting down its bed; trees/branches coming down; tracks slippery and dangerous. Or stinkin’ hot; creeks dried up; rivers at a standstill; gullies growing over; the ground crunchy as hell; you sweat on the rocky ridges; snakes are on the move.
Have you noticed how this perspective of the ‘unforgiving’ side of this environment is absent from most/many flora and fauna reporting.
I know science is clinical, but I find, this ‘environmental science’ is so easily blurred without this natural perspective.
I regress, the frog……
I undertook, during this inquiry, to investigate every element of environmental concern, not just because of the many anomalies I saw, but simply because I was interested, in the process of environmental management. For three years I spent a considerable amount of time on this.
On one of my trips into the Arthur Rylah Institute I visited two freshwater biologists. One was going to give me info on fish (Galaxia species) and the other on the spotted tree frog.
It turned out the frog bloke was absent, so I spent a little time with the fish bloke.
I had no difficulty in picking up that this fish bloke, who was about to retire, held some negative attitude, towards the new breed of flora and fauna ‘managers’.
I explained to him my grievances, with the department’s claim of extinction potential due to egd operations. He went to his filing cabinet and gave me a report on this frog, which in part explained how this frog was nomadic and was not restricted to waterways, as it could absorb and store water, under its skin, up to 50% of its body weight. Hence, this frog can be found on mountainsides and can transverse ridge and spur lines.
It’s also nocturnal and changes color to suit its immediate environment. Very difficult to find.
All info past onto the committee, from the Parlimentary Inquiry research officer (a department staffer who is now an environmental consultant), did not include this frogs nomadic trait.
Instead, a perception was produced of static populations. This extrapolated, meant that spotted frog populations, that had disappeared from previous ‘known’ locations, were seen as ‘locally’ extinct. This perception lived on well after the egd inquiry. Statistical data from this is still relied upon today and significantly contributes to its status of ‘endangered’.
The numbers were also fiddled with regards to ‘elevation found in’ data.
Historic references, to ‘known’ sightings painted a picture of a broad tolerance to elevation changes. However, when the new f & f scientists came along, this changed to one of a highly restricted elevation preference.
The ability to predict population size seemed, to me, over confident.
On looking at the field trip logs (had to use FOI to get them) of the field scientist and knowing the country, you could see that in reality, very little ground was covered, it was mainly during the day (?looking for a nocturnal frog?) and the weather dry. Only a precursory search was carried out, when considering its overall habitat range potential. Joe average might be impressed though.
Little reference to the threat from predation by the introduced trout, the obvious culprit if there were issues of decline.
When I inquired with the expert, why this information was not included, he actually denied that trout ate frogs and that if I claimed they did, I would have to produce scientific evidence. I said “but you are the people who would produce such evidence”. Checkmate.
Little (no) reference to the ecological threat from feral wildfire was made. Yet fuel loads were excessive in such areas (until 2003).
Recovery plans (unpublished at the time of the inquiry), were later drawn up for this ‘endangered’ frog. National Parks and no logging included options, of course.
Included in the’ recovery’ plan
(Environment Australia, Spotted Tree Frog 1998-2002 Recovery Plan, Graham Gillespie, Peter Robertson Department of Natural Resources and Environment Flora And Fauna, 16/9/98)
3.11.4 Fire Management
To prevent changes in the habitat of the Spotted Tree Frog or changes to water quality in STF streams: Do not permit prescribed fire in the Spotted Tree Frog habitat, and aim to exclude all fire from this area. Fuel reduction burning to be excluded from all catchments upstream of Spotted Tree Frog habitat where possible. Fire management strategy to be developed for each catchment, including provision for treatment of wildfire such that minimal disturbance to Spotted Tree Frog habitat is maintained; to be included in area fire management plans.’15
Looks like, in 1998, they were trying to say that fire, was not such a desirable thing in the whole catchment(s). Fuel reduction burning is not to be permitted upstream, in the frogs’ habitat they said. The whole report and similar ones, seem to indicate that fire is almost foreign to this forest type. A scaremongering, undercurrent runs through reports when fire is mentioned.
The 2003 wildfire did not seem to respect these ‘management’ plans or agree with exclusion principles. The fires decimated these water catchments, the ones next to and behind it. They burnt to the ground.
Why did they previously describe a policy, nearing exclusion of fire? Make sense? And they call this a recovery plan? What perception would Joe average get from this reporting? Probably, fires. Bad.
Reading between the lines, they basically were playing around with perceptions of water quality and increased sedimentation, so as to put pressure on activities like logging and even camping spots. Using ‘worst case scenarios’ and inference of looming disaster of a ‘fragile’ habitat, anything that caused sediment movement equals bad.
Many other, species specific plans, including recent ones, have similar distortion of data, by missing ‘bits’.
Gavin you said in your first reply,
“Things are so streamlined everywhere now there is little time for details like owls hidden in the bush”
What did you mean by this? It’s very much happening now? And what has been done to now (over the last 15 years), needs to be re-visited.
Do you believe that there is potential, for instances of environmental science, to be actually serious fraud?
I’d say yes, it’s just that our judiciary system doesn’t seem prepared or positioned, for dealing with this potential type of crime. Unless you’re a farmer, miner, forestry worker, fisherman…… The media seems clueless.
Your assumption on me and APM. Wrong. Why did you get this perception? Do you think the logging industry is the only group who claim fraud and injustice? Wrong again. There are many of us, and we are not just followers of a theory, but people with direct cause for upset, based on various personnel experiences.
Oh, and eductor gold dredging was banned, not on evidence. There wasn’t any. After the committee, decided to go for a second round of submissions, due to the angry response by egd proponents, over the so called ‘science’, the ambiguous, ‘precautionary principle’ was invoked, to cause a cessation to licences. This was applied even though egd had been going on for over 10 years and the PP is meant to apply to ‘new’ activities, of unknown quantity.
So disgraceful was this episode, people committed suicide after this event. So we had blokes who were once hard working, using an environmentally sustainable technique to extract gold (new wealth), minding their own business, top themselves. Some of the extreme greenies I know, see this as ‘collateral damage’.
And now the environmental scientists say islands are sinking and there’s talk of environmental refugees. Hmmmm. The flora and fauna experts haven’t hesitated to include this in their ecological threat list and in fact others are trying to discuss global warming and increased bushfire scenarios as an exclusive cause and effect scenario. Excessive fuel load hardly gets a mention. Anywhere. Never has really.
You ever heard of the U.N.s, Agenda 21, Gavin. I’m sure you have. Quite a profound proposition, requiring huge social, economic and environmental adjustments, especially to western societies. Many (like these socialists I here of in the ALP), seem quite willing to sacrifice a lot of our society, in the name of this global Gaia.
By the way Gavin, I’m not having a go at you at all and agree, with things you posted but everybodies experience is different.
“sacrifice a lot of our society”… sacrifice what exactly, and how much, stewie? What evidence supports this claim? If we apply standards of evidence to the science then let’s not stop short of applying them to the business case as well.
The ABARE study into the costs of meeting the Kyoto Protocol looked only at the costs and ignored the savings and new market opportunities. So if we claim costs and sacrifices as a reason to do nothing, then let’s substantiate it eh, not base it on a ‘we’ll all be rooned’ discussion with the neighbour over the back fence.
Stewie: With regard to “Things are so streamlined everywhere now there is little time for details like owls hidden in the bush” It’s been my experience that major processors pay scant regard to detail like wild creatures and their habitat. My criticism applies to agriculture, energy production, forestry, manufacturing, mining and urban land development. We owe a universal debt to the environment.
Stewie, when you ask “Do you believe that there is potential, for instances of environmental science, to be actually serious fraud? I can say with some certainty good science is never about fraud and most good practice is usually covered by some umbrella system like NATA. Registered business including some science in this QA system gives me great confidence as we go forward in all manner of developments. We have the right principles operating everywhere (almost).
Given I have worked with a lot of scientists; the level of any questionable behavior over the last fifty years is extremely small.
http://www.nata.asn.au/
Hoverer environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “floundering” It’s all too fresh for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the public. This blog is but one result. Let me to be the first to say our old military standards won’t prevail in this field.
Stewie says “but everybodies experience is different”
I can recall a certain lady bringing home a great variety of frogs and lizards after night shift on the frozen pea line at Cottees in Melbourne. ‘collateral damage’ depends on whose side of the fence you are on at the time. Mark my words; some environmental assets will have to be defended with guns in the same way little old mines were. There are too many of us now, one can’t possibly have it all.
Hey all mining is suddenly a form of poaching!
Back to this thread, our media acts as a circuit breaker for both sides if they are smart enough. Since I was quite rusty on Gippsland I googled. Sorry Stewie: Guess what I found here? a lot of blunt photos
http://www.australianpaper.forests.org.au/index2/updates11-02.htm
Hi Gavin. Thanks for the reply.
You say ‘We owe a universal debt to the environment.’
A grandois statement but for what it’s worth, I agree. Always have.
You say ‘We have the right principles operating everywhere (almost).’
Following the 2003 fires, gullies leading into the Gibbo River (and many other rivers) had major, ‘unnatural’ erosion events triggered.
Prior to the fires, as is normal, 5-15ft (on average) of sediment laid within these gullies.
After all the vegetation was stripped from the adjacent mountainsides by the fire, the water from the following thunderstorms, with no vegetation slowing the velocity of water, or soaking it up, rushed down stripping the gullies. This caused very large, easily observed, sediment (soil, rocks, boulders, shale) build up, at the gullies junction with the river. In the more remote heads of the river, these build-ups were astonishing.
In the lower reaches of the river, where the public come to camp, the authorities took machines onto the gully bed and pushed the accumulated material into the river, which in fact dammed the river a little, causing the water to now back-up.
They only did this, with the visible (to the public) situations. The same severe erosion took place, after the Caledonia wildfires. This remote country was closed to the public. So they couldn’t see it.
What principle is at work here?
Oh, and after the fires, I camped a number of times up at the head of this river. Very badly burnt up there. At night the dead silence was profound. Nothing but the odd tree falling down and flow of the river. Eerie.
What principle and outcome do we have here?
You say ‘I can recall a certain lady bringing home a great variety of frogs and lizards after night shift on the frozen pea line at Cottees in Melbourne’
You compare this to suicide or the cessation to an industry on biased grounds? I know what you mean but really ….
You say ‘Given I have worked with a lot of scientists; the level of any questionable behavior over the last fifty years is extremely small.’
Do you really believe this? In the field of flora and fauna management, questionable behaviour can have a biased domino effect right through to management plans. Especially since legislation such as the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Regulations 1990, Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987, etc. are specifically aimed at inclusion of species specific inputs. Don’t disagree with the philosophy of the legislation mind you, just the the method of some of the ‘inputers’. Bias driven by personnel philosophy, sorry, observations. These so-called ‘experts’ do effect policy. You’re kiddin’ me mate.
You say ‘environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “floundering” It’s all too fresh for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the public.’
This could read:
“environmental science and new practice developed around it can be described as “biased” It’s all too biased for solid peer review to be properly established and recognized everywhere particularly by the inexperienced public.”
You say ‘Guess what I found here? a lot of blunt photos’
The 2003 fires could provide millions of acres of blunt photos, although, how do you photograph the thousands of animals that evaporated.
Also, I must admit, I don’t like seeing coupes out in the bush (looks like hell) but it must be said that there are many past coupes (capable of producing ‘positive’ photos) that have returned to forest. Flora and fauna quickly migrate from adjacent, untouched forest. The evidence of scats and animal tracks seem to quickly re-establish themselves.
You say ‘some environmental assets will have to be defended with guns’
Which ones and by whom?
Pinxi, you are a scream. Discussion over the fence, eh. What about semantics over the keyboard, using second hand information. I read, I chose to believe, type of stuff. You sound like a trumped up, ‘empowered’, I know everything, uni student.
I can guarantee you, I have many thousands of man hours and bush kilometers under my belt, covering a large expanse of Victorias divide. I have participated in fauna surveys and have also dived the oceans, a lot. I also have spent a considerable amount of time over the past 15 years, reading environmental ‘stuff’, especially, that which applies to the areas I know.
I know my postings are not as eloquent or ‘on post’ as others, however I am just trying to inject real life experiences here.
And by the way why did you not tackle/comment on the rest of my post, ie fraud.
To close to the bone maybe?
Got to go. I hear the mountains calling me.