Hi Jennifer,
The Australian Environment Foundation’s second conference will be held in Melbourne on September 8th and 9th 2007 with the theme “People and their Place in the Environment”.
You can download conference details and the registration form here:
http://aefweb.info/data/Website%20flyer%20&%20Registration%20Ver1.pdf
Registration closes on July 30th.
Topics covered will include global warming, nuclear power, water, forestry, GM crops, environmental impact assessment and wildlife management. Speakers include:
Conference speakers:
Don Burke, Chairman of AEF,
Professor Augie Auer, Climatologist – Climate change from a meteorological perspective
Professor Bob Carter, Marine geologist and environmental scientist – Real Facts and Figures about Global Warming. An analysis of the facts of climate change in balanced context.
Dr Ziggy Switkowski, Chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation – Peoples future energy needs and the environment
George Warne, CEO of Murray Irrigation – Irrigation farmers place in the environment
Gary Featherston, President of the Institute of Foresters Aust. – Impacts on water from forest management
Calton Frame, Resource Manager Gunns Ltd – The environmental assessment process for the proposed pulp mill at Bell Bay
Professor Rick Roush, Dean of the Faculty of Land & Food Resources at Melbourne University – GM crops: Reducing risks to people and the environment
Dr Grahame Webb, principal, Wildlife Management Int. – Conservation through sustainable use
Professor Aynsley Kellow, Head of the School of Political Governance, University of Tasmania – Social and Political implications of environmentalism
Regards,
Max Rheese
Australian Environment Foundation
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Very nice lineup of speakers and topics!
Someone may complain of a lack of dancing fishtomatoes, but they may show themselves voluntarily.
You know, just so the public knows that science and facts and such things are properly put in the context of ‘street theatre’ and stuff like that.
There might even be people hurling bags of offal and overturning cars!
Just like in the popular press, “balance” requires reporting both fact and fantasy. And paying lots of attention to the fishtomatoes!
So looks like the AEF has a very narrow pre-approved agenda preaching to the converted. Any serious climate change pro-AGW scientists (nope – obviously the debate for the AEF is settled). Any contrarian denialist anti-forestry anti-GM types. Debates? Gunns Ltd vs Bob Brown.
Schillsy – car turning and offal throwing would only occur if they brought out the big guns – i.e. yourself. Would be staged by right wing front groups of course. And don’t worry about free press – the Australian anti-science movement owns the national newspaper.
Ha hah ha the jester is first to arrive.
Hey everyone else, remain serious now or we may miss the main event.
Organisers will need a plan B on the guest speaker. see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10444825
First thought – “Oh great, two denialists speaking about climate change. That’ll be ballanced and informative”.
Then I thought I’d have a quick look at the background of Auer, but unfortunately, if his wikipedia page is correct, he recently passed away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_H._Auer,_Jr.
Luke – there is a bit of pro-AGW there. Ziggy acknowledges global warming, that is why he is such a fan of nuclear power. But it begs the question of why he is there because according to the first 2 speakers global warming is not happening or is completely natural so why do we need nuclear power anyway. We should, according to them, be able to burn as much coal as we like.
Ziggy is obviously the token long haired greenie with his “green” nuclear power.
“Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm. …If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time. The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent. It would be like trying to increase the temperature of bath tub full of water using one drop from an eye dropper. [10]”
Thanks, Auer, but we already knew that. Hasn’t anyone ever heard of postive feedback? If you have had a microphone squeeling, that’s an example. A small sound is ampliefied, which is then picked up by the microphone, which is then amplified again. In no time, it’s making ears bleed, and all it took was the tiniest sound to kick it off, even a drop from an eye dropper.
As Nexus6 also pointed out, the conference was offering two climate speakers and now sadly must find another to balance Carter with his extreordinary promise of ‘ An analysis of the facts of climate change in balanced context’. Carter offers a historical and southern hemisphere centric view. Why not a northern hemisphere and a theological angle – how is that for balance. The Bishop Of Carlisle should be a contender – after the recent English deluge he went for the trifecta and preached that the extreme weather was a direct consequence of mankinds lack of respect ‘ for each other, for the planet and for God’. ( presumably, he was not alluding to sceptics contributing to this blog). Climate sceptics have much to learn from theology and how comforting evidence-free faith is for many. ‘Faith is believing what you know for a fact ain’t so’ (Twain).
Here is an excerpt from AEF Chairman Don Burke’s speech last year:
“The greatest threat is us: myself, all of you here today and everyone else. We are all aware that animal and plant species are becoming extinct at a cataclysmically rapid rate. We are aware that
vast areas of our planet are being damaged. We know that we are not managing our planet well at
all.
Some say that there is a real possibility that severe climate change could happen very soon. They
say the world’s ability to buffer climatic change to minimise rapid temperature fluctuations, could
collapse leading to horrific consequences.
At this stage the AEF has not developed a policy on this but I believe that we simply cannot afford
to ignore the issue.
We remain as the greatest threat because we, the citizens of planet earth are not acting together to sort things out. These must not be allowed to be political issues. These can’t be issues of
conservationists versus farmers or of any group fighting with others. We must act co-operatively as a united group.
The conservation movement has done a superb job of alerting the world to the problems caused by
our modern civilisation. At first, conservation warriors fighting government, industries and even
progress were critically important in alerting the world to what was happening.”
Obviously Jen is in general agreement with the sentiments of her Chairman.
The new speaker to replace the late Professor Augie Auer at the AEF conference is Dr Chris de Freitas, a climatologist from the University of Auckland.
Thanks David,the replacement will run the same angles. Bit like the All Blacks, even when they invoke Plan B, it looks a bit like Plan A.
I really love that ‘balance’ thing.
Anyone mentions facts–and even has a conference dealing with facts–some idiot demands “balance.”
Well, OK, let’s all concede that, then. Just be honest and concede the point.
“And now, to balance the facts with non-facts, and to balance our topic with things that are off-topic, our next speaker is… ”
(polite applause.)
“Oh, no!” our squeakers demanding ‘balance’ would declare. “You should call it ‘balance’ but not describe it accurately! Ooops, I mean, describe it, well, ah…”
This stuff about “balance” is baloney. People who can’t deal with fundamental notions about true and false, and can’t distinguish between science and politics, need to be turned aside at civilization’s door.
They might be good at menial labor, though.
Well Schillsbo – it’s all hardly convincing is it – a science fact based AEF – ROTFL – more like a checklist of IPA and WMC issues.
Anti-AGW
Pro-forestry
Pro-nukes
Pro-GM
Pro-gimme all the water
Pro-pulp mill
Pro-any argument that can conclusively prove there is absolutely NOTHING (THAT’s ZERO POINT ZERO) wrong with the Australian environment.
P.S. We’re actually really concerned about any boutique environmental issue that has no economic relevance.
Who will get this year’s Golden Chainsaw award?
Another meaningless word is “sustainable”
Properly used it relates to maintaining an existence (like holding a musical note); how it can be related to architecture, logging, farming, tourism, development etc takes quite some imagination – it is a relative concept.
Thank you, Luke.
Nice of you to reinforce my point about the “balance” we experience with irrelevant non-facts.
How come environmentalism websites never have public forums like this one? Is it because they won’t entertain any rational arguments that challenge their ideology?
Good site Jennifer. Without you and the AEF I’m not sure where I would go for both sides of the story.
Rod,
Nice of you to look for “both sides of the story.” Thing is, though, seeking the facts is the way to go.
Best of luck with your hunting!
Jeniifer Marohasy is nothing more than a slut for the logging companies. Her foundation is an absolute joke. They would be much better names “Gunns Front Group”, or anti-environment. I’m not very worried about their influence however, as most people see them as an absolute joke.
Respect you!
handbags and accessories by Kathy here
http://handbagskathy.iespana.es
Schiller Thurkettle is a very “polite” individual who obviously has nothing to offer the debate except insults. This is the hall mark of an ignorant person but I really hope that this is not the case and that on a better day Schiller may have something more positive to offer on what ever side of the debate he/she may wish to contribute.
My HUMBLEST APOLOGIES to Schiller Thurketle for my comments above. The letter I was referring to was from Jack Mason on October 26, 2007, who seems to be having some sort of life crisis which someone close to him should help him to overcome. I thought the blog was posted after the name of the blogger, not the other way around. The line is confusing. John
My HUMBLEST APOLOGIES to Schiller Thurkettle for my comments above. The letter I was referring to was from Jack Mason on October 26, 2007, who seems to be having some sort of life crisis which someone close to him should help him to overcome. I thought the blog was posted after the name of the blogger, not the other way around. The line is confusing. John
My HUMBLEST APOLOGIES to Schiller Thurkettle for my comments above. The letter I was referring to was from Jack Mason on October 26, 2007, who seems to be having some sort of life crisis which someone close to him should help him to overcome. I thought the blog was posted after the name of the blogger, not the other way around. The line is confusing. John
My HUMBLEST APOLOGIES to Schiller Thurkettle for my comments above. The letter I was referring to was from Jack Mason on October 26, 2007, who seems to be having some sort of life crisis which someone close to him should help him to overcome. I thought the blog was posted after the name of the blogger, not the other way around. The line is confusing. John