ON November 10 last year the Australian government’s Multi-party Climate Change Committee (MCCC) received a scientific briefing before it entered the policy-setting mode that it remains in today.
The briefing was provided by the only scientist on the Committee, Professor Will Steffen. A copy of the slide presentation that Steffen used has recently come into the public domain.
Quadrant Online has today posted an analysis by four independent scientists and an economist of Professor Steffen’s presentation, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised .
The analysis demonstrates that Steffen provided the MCCC with only alarmist, inaccurate IPCC advice; no attempt was made to familiarize committee members with the reasons that many independent scientists all around the world view the IPCC as a deeply flawed organisation, whose advice on climate change is almost valueless.
This analysis of Steffen’s advice of last November is the latest in a series of papers critical of IPCC science which go back to 2009. The Australian government and its advisory scientists have failed to respond to any of these critiques, apparently hoping that if they ignore criticism it will go away. Given mainstream media attitudes, this ploy has regrettably proved to be very effective.
Australian citizens – who will be paying the costs of the intended new carbon dioxide tax – should demand that the press and government alike listen to independent scientific assessments of the global warming issue, and undertake critical analyses of the unsatisfactory scientific advice that has been provided by Professor Steffen and the IPCC.
************
Other due diligence reports & related commentaries on Australian Government advice on climate change can be found here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/due-diligence-reports
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Alas – believers will just scoff at the gish gallop and ROFL at the errors – and non-believers will applaud heartily and tsk tsk.
Not much changes – wonder how Bob keeps it up. He must be 24 x 7 on it – obviously not wasting his time blogging.
But still don’t reckon the carbon tax will get up.
And I couldn’t help myself – I opened a pdf at random – the Senator Field briefing –
“D1.2. Estimates for future flows in the MDB use linear correlations between global temperature
and seasonal rainfall in the MDB, based on the incorrect assumption that global temperature
dictates local Australian rainfall (Cai & Cowan, 2008). This runs counter to well-established
principles of environmental physics, and is therefore neither robust nor sound science.
They do? CSIRO must have kacked themselves. What utter twaddle. Jeez it’s sad stuff. Possibly a lack of – and wait for it – boom boom – peer review. Sigh ….
I see that the resident moron has earned his keep for the day… and got bonus brownie points for being in first….Now if only he would take his meds and stop judging books by their covers, and do some wider reading.
Climate science is a complete crock being peddled by charlatans and incompetents using systems of review and ranking, that dont work to any reliable and trust worthy degree. ..and they know it.
So anything passes, including persuading the Dullard Govt that they should destroy our country, and its economy for no net benefit…other than keeping the Govt in power…and the money flowing into the sources of this charade… a moribund academia that has no shame.
Just ask that great communicator Professor Panasonic
What an absolute joke..what steaming Grade A hypocrisy.
luke, are you saying that linear correlation was not made in the Cai and Cowan 2008 paper?
RE “analysis by four independent scientists”: There may be a few Easter eggs still out there, but is there at least one other Australian climate scientist who could be trotted out occasionally to give Bill a break.? Pls, just one?
And on the subject of having no shame, can it possibly be any worse and more utterly hypcritical than this.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc/
So the IPCC now has extremists embedded within their ranks…should be the portent of a thoroughly well researched, well balanced and impartial document.
So much for being scientific and fact based.
Bazza – I’ve worked with many scientists from government organisations and uni’s, and the problem is always that the government is looking over their shoulder all the time. And pays them. And gives them their grants. Very oppressive politics. Bill Kininmonth can comment becuse he is retired, but no working climate scientist could dare, since their salaries are all paid by the government – and a government which can be very vindictive. I support them in keeping their heads down!
Fortunately all will change when the carbon tax goes down the gurgler, which it will if only for the reason that Prof Steffen can’t explain why the world tenderature is going down down down. Very hard to have a tax to save us all from global warming when there isn’t any. The sun is still sulking and the PDO has swung. He’s only got thirty more years to wait before warming returns.
Cohenite – the blatant misrepresentation of Cai and Cowan is an utter disgrace. It’s contemptible sophistry.
What Bruce just highlighted is what I hate most about this whole debacle.
Good people are basically being coerced by a myopic and self serving political funding system.
Not only that, the rest of the truly good work they do is not getting recognised.
What people like Luke need to understand is that the real environment and real communities have a nasty habit of stuffing up the predictions in computer models.
If everything stayed the same and we weren’t faced with an infinite amount of variables that we don’t even understand yet, then those models would have a chance of mostly being correct.
Unfortunately the real world and real people and the real environment just don’t seem to want to co operate with the predictions in the computer modelled world. It’s because everything does not stay the same and there are way too many variables.
That doesn’t mean they’re not useful tools that we can use and continually update with new data to help us understand the world around us.
However…they are only an attempt to reflect and understand reality, they are NOT reality and therefore they are often going to be very, very WRONG!!! Especially when they are used to PROJECT future occurences.
That means that the Government does indeed often get flawed advice.
It’s made even worse when they actually coerce their researchers to pretend that there was nothing flawed about the models.
They’re basically arguing that “REALITY” must be flawed or mistaken somehow, because the models couldn’t possibly be incorrect.
Luke often makes references to the dark ages…well sorry….but if what I just described isn’t dark ages philosophy, then I don’t know what else is!
It doesn’t matter how many countless $millions they spend or how many amazing models and graphs and power points etc they produce or how many times they expertly peer review and publish their own conclusions….if the basic assumptions and variables do not match what occurs in REALITY, then those assumptions are WRONG….not the fact that our environment just flat out refuses to co operate with the models.
The models are not reality. They are the reflection of someone’s assumptions, someone’s dreams, someone’s theory or someone’s interpretation of reality.
They are just a very useful tool.
They are just as capable of being WRONG as any other predictive tool.
Pretending otherwise tends to indicate your world is inside a computer model and gets validity from appearing on a computer screen or in a publication or in the media.
NEWSFLASH!>>> they aren’t necessarily right or real either!!! They might be….but I wouldn’t bet my future on a might…would you?
Steffan’s first page – 1. basic science – is flawed to start with. His reproduction of the UAH temperature record has 2010 hotter than 1998 – yet the original UAH chart shows 1998 as the hottest.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
His next chart is the totally debunked Mann hockey stick chart – has he no shame?
Next – his Arctic sea ice chart is from 2007 with an update to 2008 – it is currently 2011!!
here’s the full story : http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif
his sea level chart is also to 2008. If he had a clue he could have offered the climate4you chart that shows sea level rise halting in 2010.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/UnivColorado%20MeanSeaLevelSince1992%20With1yrRunningAverage.gif
he then quotes IPCC AR4 2007 – which BTW was formed from evidence up to 2005!!
This is the advice he’s giving government?? he should be arrested for treason!!
Bruce carrying on from what you said about scientists having to keep their heads down for their livelihood’s sake here’s a shocking story
http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2011/04/23/political_payback_%e2%80%93_oregon_style/page/full/
Jo Nova has a post about it or just read about it at the link above
Bruce claims “Bill Kininmonth can comment becuse he is retired, but no working climate scientist could dare”. So how many climate scientists have retired in the last decade in Australia, and why are they all silent, and Bruce, if you have worked with many, chances are a couple would have retired. And Bruce with your rigourous logic, I bet you cant work out why it was an extreme hot easter in London and all the eggs mellted.
More lies from Gillard and Milne about China’s green credentials, what a joke.
Look and some of the numbers in this article and look at Lomborg’s full column to understand what a total fraud this govt is embarking on.
Solar’s a fraud, winds a fraud and so are China’s credential, surprise, surprise.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/china_is_the_potemkin_village_of_the_warmists/
bazza, you’re a goose; look what happened to Dr Clive Spash and professor Robin Batterham after they dared to criticise the government’s and CSIRO’s view on AGW. The fact is scientists working for CSIRO and BoM are not going to speak out; they are censored. The few brave souls who do speak out, Evans, Carter, Franks, Ridd are subject to vile opprobrium; one only has to look at how Paltridge was dealt with on the blogsphere to understand that the so-called scientists advocating AGW aren’t impartial; they are either zealots or guns for hire, or in Flannery’s case, god knows what.
luke, still waiting; how has Cai and Cowan been misrepresented?
Easter bunny chocolate eggs melt in extrordinary London heatwave.
WEATHER ALERT!
Bazza – I didn’t say I worked with any climate scientists, although as it happens I have worked with one – whose views on AGW I have no idea. That person wasn’t working in climate science when I was working in that office. This was a few years before Climategate when the AGW issue was not quite as controversial.
As for retired climate scientists, the problem is the funding has only been fairly available these last ten years or so. So there probably isn’t many, a handful at most. The person I worked with had been made redundant from their university climate position when funding ran out (as I recall). And that person was nowhere near retirement age. So I think there aren’t many people in position to talk for two reasons (a) that they are still in the climate business, which is exclusively government backed right now and/or (b) they have bought the consensus story (for whatever reason). Or if you were retired and wanted some extra money I know which side you’d be better consulting to – not the sceptical one.
(BTW, if you want to know where I sit, I think CAGW is impossible: solar effects have clearly caused most variation in the temperature record, with a bit from the PDO/AMO, volcanoes and a small amount from (low sensitivity) CO2.)
Very appropriate post, Charlotte.
Well Cohenite – if you actually read the paper that is simply what faux sceptic like to do – misrepresent the science. I reckon this is one of the worst try-ons I’ve ever seen.
And we all know how the faux sceptics love to leave out details and only make half the story.
“The future of MDB inflow depends upon the future
rainfall and temperature changes. Climate change signals
and impacts tend to project onto modes of interannual
variability [Shi et al., 2008]. Two known large-scale climate
drivers affecting rainfall variability over the MDB are the
Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) [Saji et al., 1999; Cai et al.,
2005] and El Nin˜ o – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [Nicholls
et al., 1996]. The impact of ENSO occurs mainly in JJA and
SON with anomalously low rainfall over the MDB during
an El Nin˜ o event; the IOD mainly influences SON rainfall
such that when the sea surface temperature (SST) in the
eastern pole is anomalously low, MDB rainfall decreases. A
correlation of SSTs and MDB rainfall with inflow for each
season (not shown) clearly shows these influences.
[20] Climate models project a median annual rainfall
reduction of 5 – 15% by 2060 over the MDB [Christensen
et al., 2007]. The consensus is strong because the reduction is
mostly in JJA and SON, in which the warming pattern in the
eastern Indian Ocean is IOD-like, due to a robust greater
transient greenhouse warming of the Eurasian landmass than
that over the ocean”
” Our analysis reinforces the notion that a rainfall
reduction alone is unable to explain the observed inflow
Figure 3. Maps of correlations between MDB annual-total inflow and seasonal rainfall (a– d), between residual seasonal total inflow and residual seasonal-mean Tmax (e– h), and between residual seasonal-total inflow and residual seasonalmean Tmin (i– l). All data are linearly detrended, and the analysis is carried out without 1956 data.
reduction trend, and that there is a contribution from rising
temperatures. Our results indicate that a rise of 1C in
temperature leads to a 15% reduction in the annual inflow,
even if rainfall does not change. The negative impact of
rising temperature is unlikely to be offset by an increase in
rainfall, as most climate models are projecting a rainfall
reduction. Therefore we can expect more occurrences of
low MDB inflow, as observed in more recent years. We
stress that a comprehensive assessment must be carried out
through detailed hydrological modelling.
However, our
results do highlight a potentially significant impact from
rising temperatures”
With the exception of Franks we’re dealing with a bunch of climate unpublished whingers. The pitiful misrepresentation of this research disqualifies this crowd from even hosting a sceptics chook raffle.
And notice how they’ve ducked the ENTIRE SEACI findings – what a hoot.
In fact you should read the latest SEACI research – with governments being briefed by that material – your mates are simply a laughing stock.
luke, could you link to the paper thank you.
Waiting…waiting…
http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-1%20Reports/Phase1_SynthesisReport.pdf
It’s probably this one cohenite and el gordo.
I have read it in this one anyway.
There is also an attempt to paraphrase it in the MDBP.
Look out though, It’s a 10MB download.
I’m also repeating something I commented on at the Climate Refugee post:
It is an extraordinary conceit to believe that a bureaucracy in Canberra might manage nature better than nature.
That is just plain wrong
I don’t care how many models and graphs and power points etc are produced to try and prove that basic asumption.
That basic assumption, which sits at the bottom of the arguments for the carbon tax and also at the bottom of the arguments for the MDBA is just completely indefensible.
That is essentially what they’re all trying to prove.
but Debbie – it employs 63 people to work on it!! /sarc
They start by saying what factors affect the climate of SE Australia – they then say they don’t entirely know how the mechanisms work and more (money) research is needed, then they project with computer models what the climate will be in the future using the mechanisms they don’t fully understand.
Yeah sure!
Thanks Debbie, that is not the one; that is just the SEACI report which does not assist luke’s point that Cai and Cowan do not linearly link MDB inflows with non-regional temperature; in fact if one looks closely at the SEACI report with its claim that the most recent drought is worst than the 1936-45 and the Federation drought, not for rainfall, but for inflow, we see that inflow for the previous 2 droughts which were more widespread and had less rainfall then the most recent one are assumed on the basis of modelling to have had less inflow due to higher non-regional temperatures.
That should be: “less inflow [reduction] due to higher non-regional temperatures [for the most recent drought].
Welcome to state of the climate analysis – illustrating the worthlessness of the sceptic science agenda.
Cai and Cowan http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2008/2008GL033390.shtml
have produced a nuanced complex report that is now perhaps even updated with new information. Temperature is an additional interesting factor. They don’t overclaim the result.
But with SEACI II we’re well on the way to unravelling fundamental mechanisms that sceptics will come to love as they have so taken to ENSO and IPO. i.e. new stuff guys. Meanwhile sceptics are locked back in 1980s ideas and reduced to divining as best they can through BoM’s public graphic series.
Yo’all should be fascinated in SEACI II – some great ideas being tested. Of course you’d prefer to shut this state of the art work down and have a book burning wouldn’t you?
But hey I still don’t think a carbon tax is a good idea.
And don’t forget the new work http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-2Reports/S2_AR0910.pdf
And please register for the 19 July 2011 http://www.seaci.org/ – Debs and Mal can go along and tell the scientists what shonks they are. Great opportunity.
Cohenite, Debbie and Mal might like to have a look at this paper from Potter and Chiew ( CSIRO)about MDB rainfall/ Runoff 1895 to 2007.
Page two has a couple of graphs that are interesting.
http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/G6/potter.pdf
I will withhold comment on whether Australian governments only get flawed advice on climate or not. But I can give you some insights on the perspectives of public servants based on my numerous yarns with colleagues over the years, and my own 40+ years as a research scientist working for the Qld government. For most of my career I was employed as a rangeland ecologist, although strictly speaking most of my research focussed on the ecology of grazed woodlands. As you might imagine, there were few jobs in the private sector for a specialist like me. However as a professional the latter was not a concern. Indeed my employer facilitated my training and directly or indirectly gave me the time and financial support which enabled me to obtain Master’s and PhD degrees. And certainly for the first 15 years or so I always felt that my advice to my employer was respected and seen as independent/impartial. It was good to be part of a Westminster system and to be appreciated. Nevertheless, there was always the increasing knowledge that you were more and more tied to a lifetime of government employment, albeit one that possessed a reasonable superannuation scheme on which to see out old age.
Then along came Joh Bjelke-Petersen as our Premier. A premier who famously had no concept of the Westminster system of government and who made it very clear to all his public servants that he did not value independent advice. As an example to all and sundry he destroyed the public service career and virtually ran out of the state, John Sinclair, founder of the Fraser Island Defender’s Organisation – because he had the temerity to challenge government fostered sand mining on the island. Joh eventually got his comeuppance via the Fitzgerald Inquiry, but employees got the clear message that superannuation benefits were no ‘lay down misere’. You were not a permanent public servant but employed at the government’s whim.
With the arrival of the Goss Labor government public servants were generally relieved and looked forward to a revival of Westminster system values. They would be deeply disappointed. Goss decided that after such a long period of conservative rule the public service had to be “contaminated”, so he arranged for two ‘bovver boys’ (an academic, Peter Coaldrake, and a labor minder within the Premier’s Dept, Kevin Rudd, to make the public service more pliable to a labor government. The message quickly got out to the government’s employees that our function was not to give independent advice, but rather to implement government policy. Challenging that policy would be fraught. Independent advice evaporated. While at the operational level we learnt to keep our heads down. And if any naked government politician visited, we told him what a wonderful suit of clothes he had on.
Meanwhile if you toed the party line life was not unbearable. All Australian governments quickly saw the political advantage of this Goss/Coaldrake/Rudd model. They debased their public servants’ ability and willingness to give independent recommendations. But if you followed current government policy you could still be well funded. In my own case this meant switching to projects within the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, rather than projects aimed at improving or maintaining agricultural production – for which I was ostensibly employed. The government got what it wanted and I guess I got to optimise my superannuation payout on retirement.
I retired within 3 weeks of receiving urgent and friendly advice to remove from the hard drive of my computer (and everywhere else) a study we had been asked to prepare (by the Director General of my Department) for possible submission to a Productivity Commission Enquiry into native vegetation management. Someone in Premier’s did not like it! The results of the study were not in harmony with either the Howard or Beattie government’s position on meeting Australia’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. The information never reached the enquiry (although it was resurrected courtesy of FOI down the track).
To cut to the quick. I have no doubt that in this country to-day research that is unique to government employment or largely dependent on government for its funding is also intimidated by government. Overtly or covertly. This may not necessarily be out of order for short term research (within the life of a parliament), but for those essential longer term studies it is a travesty (sic).
Give it up luke;
http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf
Even Hansen has smelt the aerosols.
Hi Bill, a salutory tale; your study on native vegetation management would be of great interest to Leon Ashby who was a farmer in QLD at the time of Beattie who forced Leon off his property on the basis of Kyoto committments.
Leon was and still is an innovative farmer who could maximise yield while preserving considerable habitat but, alas, such reasonable and productive efforts were, as you say, not liked in the corridors of power.
Cohenite
This an interesting paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the journal of cosmology – so its the CHC’s that might have been the cause, not CO2.
Almost unprecedented, Australia has its second wettest summer on record.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
Bill Burrows,
So the view that government climate science is to support public policy, rather than as an unbiased source of data and interpretation that it’s made to be, is not surprising. I had the distinct impression that criticism of my heresies were politically motivated, thanks to a few Freudian slips made some of the government employees who post comments here. Malevolent bunch they are indeed.
louis, the Lu paper is striking because it indisputably establishes saturation of CO2; the only issue I have with it is that the author also establishes low feedback from water and then uses IPCC conclusions about high water feedback, which are contradicted by the data, to calculate the forcing for CFCs; if water has less feedback effect as this paper shows then it must mean a higher forcing for the CFcs:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-4505-1.pdf
This point, that the feedback from water is reduced by CO2, especially in the overlapping parts of the spectrum, was also the subject of Nasif’s recent posts.
Cohenite,
and the upshot is that the usual suspects will simply ignore it in any case. I downloaded and had a quick read of it, (as if I have the time !). I see that Luke has gone quiet on the downwelling IR hypothesis data as well.
apologies to those who have trouble getting comments up here. the following from Tim Curtin…
“Several points missing from the discussion of Steffen’s Ppt presentation to
the critically important so-called Multiparty (sic) Committee on Climate
Change last November.
“First, Steffen’s Slide#1 shows “average temperature” of the Earth from 1880
to 2000, and is a gross deception because the tropics are completely absent
from the record before 1910, and only spottily there before 1950, while
since 1990 high latitude met. stations in Canada and former USSR have been
disappearing or migrating south, so Steffen understates global temperatures
before 1950 and exaggerates them since 1990. The NOAA provides maps showing
met station coverage since 1880 and a graph of the number of met. stations
worldwide, still below 5,000 in 1950, peaks at 6,000 in 1970 and is now less
than 1,500, the level in 1910.
“Another deception is Steffen’s photo of Brisbane airport today, not at high
tide, and depiction of it in 2100 with sea rise PLUS a high tide. But then
who am I to challenge a scientist of renown who constantly compares apples
with oranges. But Steffen is right about one thing, his pic shows the good
folk of Queensland simply do not have the nous to build a sea wall of even
one metre to keep the sea at bay, as they will all be so green by then that
the future of the periwinkle will be enough for them not to allow it.
“But the biggest porky in Steffen’s show is his Slide showing “Emission
reduction strategies: cumulative emissions approach”.
“This slide is based on the meretricious paper in Nature (April 2009) by the
Meinshausen family including no doubt their baby sitter (Will Steffen). That
paper like Steffen’s slide implies that it is GROSS emissions that add to
the atmospheric concentration of CO2, when of course it is only the airborne
proportion (44% on average since 1958) that raises temperature. Steffen’s
slide claims that all 305 GtCO2 emitted from 2000-2009 stayed aloft, when
even CDIAC data for [CO2] at Mauna Loa show an increase of only 18.2 ppm =
38.63 GtC = 141.8 GtCO2.
“That is 46.5% of Steffen’s grossly misleading Madoffian number, but he knew
none of the MCCC were up to checking his data and sources, least of all
anyone at ANU’s or La Trobe’s economics departments, or any scientist at
ANU’s Crawford School and Climate Change Institute where Steffens’
“peers”/pals reside.
“Neither Steffen nor La Trobe’s Harry Clarke’s comments (at Catallaxy)
display even elementary due diligence.
Tim Curtin
PS My published E&E papers on all this are at my website http://www.timcurtin.com“
Cohenite,
Eeek! The climate sensitivity paper EGU2011-4505 is another stake in the heart of the CAGW vampire!
Rest assured Sinkers you’re still politically motivated. It’s unheard of too in the commercial world for paid for science to support business policy. That NEVER happens …. Strange don’t you think that there are so few whistle blowers on the BIG “oooo ooooo ooooo” public conspiracy.
What’s striking about the Lu paper is how it’s so neatly tucked away over in cosmology. And even more fascinating in that all those 2nd law violation problems seem to have evaporated for Cohers and Sinkers. Just mysteriously gone…. and we’re suddenly talking about … choke … forcings …..
I see Curtin is running the old met station dropout ruse – discredited – http://www.skepticalscience.com/Assessing-global-surface-temperature-reconstructions.html
nothing like composting those sceptic myths – keep’em recycling – it’s organic
And yes his papers would be in E&E wouldn’t they. LOL !
Luke,
Correct – sure I am politically motivated on this – CAGW was politically motivated from the start, and so one fights fire with fire.
You understanding of the commercial world is some what incomplete, but the commercial world is not about forcing people to change their lifestyles, but to produce something to sell. Unlike government scientific surreality, we only get paid if the theory works. Stop creating strawman arguments.
And it’s not a public conspiracy either – it’s overtly advertised/publicised – except most can’t believe that it’s true. It’s there in black and white – except I took your lot at their word – that it’s all about forcing us to live more sustainable lifestyles. Really Luke, when I am told this by card paying devout ALP people, I do take them at their word.
And I note from the short comments between Cohenite and myself that 2nd law (thermodynamic?) violations here that this hasn’t been raised – another of your straw clutching solutions?
Let’s face it Luke, the CAGW hypothesis has imploded from its own internal inconsistencies and all your malevolent blusterings are simply diversions.
You’re just too slick Sinkers – I didn’t say you raised the 2nd law in this thread. It was simply a follow on from previous threads. Now don’t come over all suddenly innocent. But hey as we know you’ve probably just changed your mind …. (again) ….
” but the commercial world is not about forcing people to change their lifestyles” – excuse me – that’s the whole nature of the value proposition – Things go better with Coke, come to Marlboro country, For a hard earned thirst, you need a big cold beer, and the best cold beer is Vic; which car, time share holidays, genetic engineered crops, cosmetic surgery, writing anti-AGW op-eds by nefarious think tanks , “It’s Time ! (Labor campaign)”, certain symptoms – see your doctor for more information (pharmaceuticals)
– the issue was whether science can be bought to support an argument – it certainly can
at what point does support become subvert or corrupt?
However do we think our local researchers investigating climate mechanisms are doing so to keep Julia happy? And it is far from black and white. That’s the nature of risk.
What is consistent is your deviousness
cohers,
Another new paper supporting that argument re CFCs:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/21/ozone-hole-caused-a-great-deal-of-the-climate-change-thats-been-observed/#more-38401
SD, the Polvani paper is excellent; unfortunately with AGW now being a political and media driven issue, and since the msm is about 4 years behind the science, luke is quite aware he can continue to carry on like a pork chop because noone is taking to task the Flannerys and Steffans.
Luke,
Business does not have leglislation enacted to force us to drink coke or what ever else some of us produce for mass consumption. Your lot do – and that’s the difference which you seem incapable of understanding. When business does get legislation in its favour, then it is given monopoly power by the state – crony capitalism, as it is called, to which your lot express indignant outrage. Faux outrage I suppose it might be called.
I don’t think I could ever be described as devious – that’s simply an epithet you use. Any deviousness might be sheeted to government to sneak in a carbon tax under the guise of saving the planet.
Pity the sceptics are another 100 years behind the science as SEACI indicates ….
But 15 reasons against a unilateral Aussie carbon tax http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/opinion/comment/will-the-carbon-chasm-swallow-gillard/2143247.aspx?storypage=0
Bill Burrows – thanks for taking the time to give us your inside view. Fortunate for me that I have by choice worked in industry since graduating and so I’ve only seen looking from outside in, though as I said I could always easily see politics infusing everything when working with the CSIRO and the uni’s. We’d just accommodate this, or we’d work instead with a contract lab without this deadweight around their ankles.
That is not to say industry is all fluffy and wonderful. Not only do you usually have no-speaka-to-the-media and full confidentiality clauses in contract, but there is a self censorship. We’d not speak of anything counter to the company interest as that would be unprofessional. However it was the shareholders money we were spending, they owned the results of the work.
Unfortunately the public service, including the government science agencies and the uni’s are all spending our tax payers money. That is a bit different.
I am also sad because when the global warming fallacy finally breaks down a lot of young scientists with families are going to be out of a job.
Lots to learn Luke about science a century ago. Interesting story on science history on SBS last night and how scientists contributed across disciplines in times when the boundaries were fewer and easier to cross. Alfred Wegener was a name in climatology/meteorology, but he is well known to geologists too by giving them the key to help unlock the secrets of their rocks. Continental drift was that key. It got me searching for other climate scientists who had made contributions across disciplines and Arrhenius came to mind for his ice age theories. Then I tried the reverse of geologists who had made contributions to climate science – I drew a blank. Any nominations?
Luke, Thanks for that link, but it does not really address the issues I raised, specifically he absence of the tropics from the met. records pre 1910 and later.
Indeed, the author implies that we really only need one met.station to give us world temperature, as “the trends are the same everywhere”, as here where says: “Fortunately, there is not much difference in the temperature trend between airport and non-airport stations”. Clem Davis at ANU’s Fenner School has documented the rise in temperature at Canberra Airport since its expansion from around 2002 as compared with Tuggeranong. You need to bear in mind that first we have to determine the absolute level of the base temperature in say 1950-1980 and the levels in subsequent years, and that depends on the actual temperatures, and only then is there the issue of trend. What your site does is extrapolate from trend artefacts to cooked absolutes.
So boring Tim – that’s why two SST data sets and boreholes give the same story (NEXT!). Does anyone really care what the temperature is in Canberra?
It comes down to this.
If you have attempted to model something that is fantastically complex and barely understood, (eg. economy, climate) then you are frivolous, at best.
If you have given a moment’s credence to such a model, you cannot be a scientist in any worthwhile sense. No peer review, no modest disclaimers, no Nobel can make you what you are not. You cannot be a scientist, or even lay claim to a capacity for rational thought.
With the Climate Bible Writers Guild in the pay of Greenpeace and WWF, what chance has the govt got of getting any other slant on climate?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/
How can our own MSM be so unquestioning?
Bill it’s nice to hear from you again (I remember your posts about the Rockhampton floods) and sto hear your professional story
I wonder how I would have coped if I had to follow ‘non independent’ science
Warwick Hughes has a post today about the latest CSIRO state of the climate report
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=909#comments
and here’s part of my comment
A couple of things to like:
a) No disclaimer that I can see:
b) at page 10 ‘This book is based on rigorous peer-reviewed scientific literature to articulate how human activities affect our climate, what changes we have seen already, what further changes we can expect, and what we might do to reduce future changes and live with those that are now inevitable. The wealth of science behind this book reflects decades of research by researchers in Australia and internationally, including many from CSIRO.’
Well I suppose you can like this bit ‘This book is based on rigorous peer-reviewed scientific literature’ but the rest of that sentence tells the reader that the CSIRO’s mind is made up – science follows policy or something like that
Val,
I cannot accept CSIRO or BoM’s version of events particularly when BoM wipes the slate prior to 1910.
There are reported deaths of thousands of birds and bats from excessive heat, in flight, during the 19th and even late 18th century and those things just do not happen these days yet birds are around in big numbers.
As a long-time member of various bird groups I have never come across the phenomenon and only once, over 50 years ago, have I ever seen a single bird die in flight and the temperature was 50c.
Using Stevenson Screens as an excuse they have cooked the books again.
I noticed that my local Casino Airport has had the data prior to the 60s removed by BoM – I still have the 1910 – 60s data.
As the models are flawed and local data has been adjusted so that it’s unreliable, I support Joelle Gergis in her attempt to get greater recognition of reality through historical documents.
http://www.unimelb.edu.au/culturalcollections/research/collections4/gergis.pdf
John,
Only the future’s certain, the past can be sanitised at any time…
eg,
Good to see that someone from CSIRO is prepared to look at historical data.
BTW, I was reading a similar doc on line recently [can’t find it now] about bird and bat deaths due to extreme temps and it was at Rose Hill, Paramatta in 1793 when the colony was facing its first serious drought. They spoke of “peroquettes” dropping dead in large numbers. They most probably would have been rosellas which got their name from Rose Hill [rosehillers].
“This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe,” said Beal.
Looks like those GCMs of the BoM and CSIRO etc are being attacked by the future as well as history. Combet take note! And we all thought the science was settled:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/27/climate-variability-leakage-around-the-cape-of-good-hope/#more-38838
Spangled, have a look at the comments on WUWT, wrong assumptions and a plea for more research money. As someone commented sailors have been using the currents for hundreds of years but no climate scientist seems willing to put two and two together to say it is cloud formation in various locations that changes local water lemperatures that in turn leads to changes in currents. The SOI is now being recognised as affecting local weather (at least Queensland) and rainfall- positive higher than normal rainfall. What causes SOI (the pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti) to change? The simple answer is clouds affecting water evaporation. Nothing to do with CO2. There seems to be cyclical pattern in rainfall and SOI.
Steffen, CSIRO and some at BOM (there are a few who look at weather patterns) are providing poor at advice because they have political motives, believe in the IPCC and refuse to look at real historical data.
In the middle of the drought professor Andrew Vizard said BoM should look at their historical rainfall records so that farmers and graziers can plan their season.
‘The Bureau of Meterology has a fantastic mine of historical data which is of great use, and it needs to be farmed more,’ he said.
‘We have to search for new ways beyond just sea surface temperature and the SOI index.’
The M D B A has also just claimed they need extra time to do more research.
They have also snagged an extra 59 million dollars of taxpayers money that was earmarked for infrastructure upgrades.
Our real climate as opposed to the one sitting in their predictive models has very inconveniently stepped outside their projected parameters and stuffed up the projections.
How completely inconsiderate of our climate and also all our natural environmental assets.
You would think they would have read all the settled science, recognised the mind boggling amount of time and money spent to prove that a bureaucracy could manage the climate and just behaved accordingly.
Naughty naughty naughty climate and naughty naughty natural environmental assets.
Debbie it’s interesting when one looks at the last 111 years of MDB anomaly graph rainfall record.
Using a 15 year moving line shows below average rainfall for the first near half century then above or on the average for about another 45 years.
Sure 2001 to 2009 was a bad drought, but broken by the 2010 record rainfall.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=15
Of course the Australian continental record is even worse with the line below average for about the first 70 years, but much better since.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=15
jeepers you read some moronic comments here:
“Steffen, CSIRO and some at BOM (there are a few who look at weather patterns) are providing poor at advice because they have political motives, believe in the IPCC and refuse to look at real historical data.” This is so stupid that it’s beyond belief ! Who do you think has done the ENSO research and how ?
Debbie bleats endlessly about some “prediction” that has not come to pass. WTF?
And Vizard’s quotes
“‘The Bureau of Meterology has a fantastic mine of historical data which is of great use, and it needs to be farmed more,’ he said.
‘We have to search for new ways beyond just sea surface temperature and the SOI index.’”
GOLLY GEE – THAT’s OUTSTANDING – the man is a genius. Thank heavens he pointed that out. Now they can get on with clear heads. Truck a duck.
And they had to get rid of Kininmonth before you got your hands on it. How ironic.
And Neville prefers to engage in antediluvian entrails forecasting while ignoring a state of the art drought statistical analysis by SEACI.
You lot are stupid beyond all belief.
Or sceptic killer zombies. What’s the difference between a sceptic and a computer. You only have to punch that data into a computer once.
Luke,
I reckon a smart-arse like you could even answer this:
I really cannot understand why we’re doing what we are doing on a public policy level. I just don’t get why we’re pumping tens, possibly hundreds, of billions into technologies like windmills, which we know won’t work, to solar which doesn’t need subsidies any more, but not willing to put money into other interesting things which might work, like thorium just as one example.
Unless, of course, I’m right in that what we should do about this problem has been hijacked by those who don’t in fact want to solve this single, particular, problem of requiring low carbon energy generation but who want to use this agreed upon problem as a means of imposing their vision of the desirable lifestyle upon the rest of us. And so we go with solutions which won’t in fact work because they desire that the problem not be solved, but that we should accord with their instructions upon how society should be.
Which is all rather depressing really: rather the end of the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/27/the-end-of-the-scientific-revolution.html
I supplied a link to two BOM graphs and suddenly Luke spits the dummy because he doesn’t like the result.
What can you do with a dummy that hates history so much. He seems to be a devotee of the Flannery school of dreaming, perhaps he helped to write some of the chapters of Tim’s latest fantasy.
No Neville – it’s just that you’re such a dope. You see if it was a temperature record you wouldn’t believe it would you? And you have a much more incisive argument at your disposal although it probably requires Grade 4 level English.
So we’re spending billions on windmills are we? The end of scientific revolution is it when technology and knowledge is exponentiating. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – pullease !
See! I knew you could.
Luke,
Did you actually look at the models in the MDBP?
They are most certainly predictive.
The climate model is projected to 2030 as are the extremely pathetic socio economic models.
2010 & 2011 have stepped straight out of the climate model parameters.
I wont even even start on the apalling mess that the socio economic models are.
You dont seem to be able to understand the WHY factor.
Why is this happening this way?
What is driving this legislative push?
You seem to be operating under the naiive belief that is has something to do with saving the environment.
WTF?
BoM and CSIRO have fallen in love with the models, they don’t work. If we could look back through the historical record it will be much clearer going forward.
Cite the reference Debs – specifically
Want to see a lot of wrong models?
The only one near the mark is the bottom one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nina3-4-prediction-apr2011.png
According to Dr Gergis “the further back you look the further forward you can see”.
spangles, don’t think we have seen this since 1973.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/soi30.png
I feel a double dip coming on.
eg,
I think it’s over 30 now. The scrub turkeys are ripping my lawn to shreds. They love the wet. And the lawn grubs.
The looney lefty warmers are out in force claiming current tornadoes are a result of AGW without checking facts as usual:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html#history
Luke,
Go to the MDBA site and download the 4 volumes of the plan.
Cut and paste from the foreword:
While the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (the Authority) is charged with
developing a Basin Plan for the Minister’s consideration, this occurs within the
framework of the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth). The Commonwealth Parliament
in 2007 and 2008 clearly laid out the general objectives of the Water Act, and
prescribed how the Basin Plan was to be developed. The Water Act requires
the Authority to determine the volume of water required to maintain and
restore environmental assets, using best available science and the principles of
ecologically sustainable development. Subsequently the Authority addressed the
optimisation of environmental, social and economic outcomes.
Go to the snapshot section that discusses their interpretation of sufficient and notice how they completely overlooked the drought.
I draw your attention to the analysis of the climate model on page 26 and then in several other sections thereafter. Notice that it is indeed predictive and how very different 2010 and 2011 are to those projections.
Their conclusion is: “general agreement” that the surface water is likely to decline.
They claim ‘considerable anaylsis of social and economic impacts’ which then goes on to claim that their SDLs will only result in the loss of 800 jobs.
That was the work of Grafton who then got to peer review his own work.
On page 23 there is a sweeping and completely unsupported statement about the value of certain commodities and their sustainability. That is then assumed as a given for the rest of their economic analysis work about commodities and their water requirements.
I could go on and on but that would take up too much space on Jen’s blog.
Go and look for yourself
I would however draw your attention to the very convoluted and disingenious way they try to argue for ‘end of system flows’ and a hydrological solution that would result in a minimum of an extra 2000ML per day being tipped out the Murray Mouth.
Where do you think that water might be coming from?
The whole mind bogglingy expensive exercise is all about proving the need for the Federal Government to muscle in on water management and wrest it from the States.
It is extremely political and mostly highly unscientific.
They are however pretending to be scientific by supposedly using ‘best available science’ and hijacking models and graphs from SEACI, BOM, CSIRO, ABARES and others.
CSIRO have already come out and distanced themselves from the MDBA in a public letter already referenced on Jen’s blog.
I will lay a bet that your precious SEACI and several others will soon do the same.
As I have tried to explain to you on many occaisions, I do not blame the scientists and researchers who are genuinely trying to to their jobs.
I do however blame the ones like Grafton et al who have very obviously sold their souls.
This is shonky science because the answer and the desired results were already decided before they lifted a finger.
Their basic assumptions were questionable.
It results in proving the statement:
Garbage in = Garbage out.
Just in case you didn’t understand the implication of the foreword and what the MDBA therefore was charged to do.
Let me put it into 4th grade English for you.
The MDBA was ‘charged with’ finding the science that proved that the Federal Government needs to take control of water:
“this occurs within the
framework of the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth). The Commonwealth Parliament
in 2007 and 2008 clearly laid out the general objectives of the Water Act, and
prescribed how the Basin Plan was to be developed. ”
The MDBA has to come up with a number that will be acceptable to the Federal Government:
“The Water Act requires
the Authority to determine the volume of water required…”
The remainder is all about how they must use scientific studies and also the environment to prove this case:
” maintain and
restore environmental assets, using best available science and the principles of
ecologically sustainable development. ”
And the last sentence says to put together a bit about how that might affect basin communities once you have proved your case:
“Subsequently the Authority addressed the
optimisation of environmental, social and economic outcomes.”
Deb – stop doing a gish gallop. We’re talking about the climate modelling not all the flow on effects into the MDBA.
Web reference pls and which pages.
But Luke,
It is their gish gallop that is being used.
I have referenced it.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that it is not the raw data that is the actual problem, it is the assumptions that underpin the usage of this data and the projections that are made because of the assumptions.
You still seem to be operating under the very naive belief that these models are being used correctly and in a scientifically sound manner.
Maybe I should have pasted these paragraphs as well?
“the basis of the proposed Basin Plan, and the rationale behind the proposals
presented by the Authority for discussion. Supporting volumes of the Guide
are technical documents that are being developed by the Chief Executive and
staff of the Authority to assist in informing public discussion on the proposed
Basin Plan.
The Guide is the result of considerable work over the past 18 months to shape
the decisions underpinning the proposals described. This includes extensive
scientific analysis of the Basin’s ecology, identification of the key environmental
assets and key ecosystem functions and their water requirements, detailed
hydrologic modelling using models developed by Basin states and the Authority,
and detailed social and economic analyses to assess the potential impacts of
meeting the environmental water requirements of the Basin. While the best
available information and analysis underpin this work, the Authority recognises
the limitations of the available data and the capacity of any modelling exercise.”
Have you noticed they actually admit it themselves?
They point out that there are limitations and this particular blog repeatedly highlights these limitations.
Unfortunately our legislators and too many of our compromised researchers are using all this severely limited modelled information (that the actual genuine people point out is severely limited) as ‘settled science’ that they absolutely believe in and that they must legislate to control and manage.
That is the problem…it is not necessarily the actual models themselves.
If they were allowed to continually update them and use them for proper scientific purposes I would not be complaining.
Instead we have people almost turning themselves inside out to defend the political purposes.
Typically, the climate and and our environmental assets have no inkling that they were supposed to be supporting the political assumptions in the reports.
Web reference pls and which pages.
mdba.gov.au
Go to every single section and read the introduction to each section that states in one form or another that they are linited by ‘the terms of reference’ or the’prescriptions’ of The Water Act 2007.
Then go to almost every single conclusion that relates to the climate models and see how they come to ‘general agreement’ that the likely outcome is less rain and less inflows for the future.
Also note how they repeatedly comment that it will be necessary for government intervention to help inland communities ‘adjust’ to our future and that considerable ‘compensation’ will be necessary.
If you’re game, you are also welcome to try and unravel the socio- economic modelling.
I suspect that is probably outside your sphere of expertise but I may be incorrect.
The upshot of it was that after 20 YEARS (!!!!!!) it is likely that only 800 people will still be unemployed because of this : direct reference quote:
release of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan represents a significant step
towards the historic adoption of the first Basin Plan in 2011.
If that is not a predictive model Luke, I have no idea what is.
There is a delightful section 8.10 “potential scenarios for SDL proposals” that begins on page 110 that you may find illuminating.
It also covers their rather amazing theories and expected outcomes for the Murray mouth.
Skip over to page 162 and have a gander at how they propose to use this water and tell me how that could possibly work in years like 2010 and 2011?
They have no plan for wet and high inflow years because they didn’t predict they could possibly happen. Bloody annoying 2010 and 2011 have left them with egg on their faces because they didn’t have a plan for something like that.
And if you want more detail:
Where to find more detail
More detail on the Guide, the proposed Basin Plan, the work of the Authority
generally, and locations and timing of the Authority’s engagement activities,
including regional and metropolitan public meetings, can be found on the
MDBA website (see below).
This includes information on how to provide feedback as well as additional detail
(see Appendix B) on the technical issues and work that supports the positions
outlined in this document. The website also contains factsheets on specific items
of interest and a large number of frequently asked questions.
If you are unable to access this information on the web, your local library or local
industry peak body should be able to assist. Alternatively you could contact the
Authority on the 1800 number below, or email a request for a DVD containing
electronic copies of volumes 1–21.
• MDBA website — http://www.mdba.gov.au
• Phone — 1800 230 067
• Email — engagement@mdba.gov.au
More verbiage. I’m not ploughing through a whole site. What does it take for you to give a http reference.
Well, waddya know! It musta happened before:
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2899-1801-thomas-jefferson-worried-about-climate-change.html
But I bet he didn’t get buffoons like Steffen and Flannery to tell him how to fix the problem.
But Luke,
I would have to download untold megabytes again to give you specific http references.
Why would I do that if I have already downloaded it?
I wonder if you realise the cost of doing something like that when you live in the bush and don’t have access to unlimited downloads?
As you pointed out it is a massive download.
You don’t have to go through the whole site, just click on the MDBP documents, starting with Volume 1.
If you would like to pass your email address through Jen I will happily email you the download and point you to the right pages.
I can even highlight the relevant sections for you.
I have no intention of downloading it again when I don’t need to.
For heavens sake – right button click – copy link address – paste – must be a whole 50 bytes
Or do I assume it is the guide you are referring to.
Yes Luke,
The guide.
So now – what exactly is your issue with their climate analyses specifically. Addressing the report pls.
Luke,
I do not have an issue with most of their historical graphs or their compilation of raw data.
As I have repeatedly explained, I think that the people who do that specific work are doing exemplary work.
My issue is that these models have been hijacked and used for purposes that they can’t possibly fulfil.
This has been done despite the warnings made by the people who compiled these graphs and models in the first place.
Their compilation was scientifically sound, the way they have been subsequently used and interpreted is not scientifically sound.
Go back to my comments at April 29 12.36pm
For me to further explain this would take up too much of Jen’s blog.
If you are truly interested in my analysis of the MDBP and my severe objections to the basic assumptions that underpin it and the conclusions they make from it, then you are welcome to send your contact details through Jen and I will happily oblige.
Debs this goes to the heart of your complaint about the climate science. As we get closer to the citation you’re laying smoke. Forget about how the climate analysis is used – we’re talking about what it is. Not what it allegedly is. I’m trying to find your 2011 forecast in there and having trouble. So if it ain’t there you’re talking crap about climate research.
They have done scenarios with the entire record. They have analysed the best science with high, median, and low scenarios. And optimistically rejected the 10% reduction for a 3% reduction BY 2030.
Now you could have easily made the cite and the specific issue instead of doing a barrage of flak.
I’m simply asking where is this in their text?
Gee whiz Luke,
You truly are a master at missing the point.
I am not trying to lay smoke. I apologise if it’s difficult for you to understand.
My complaint is definitely about how the climate science and anaysis is used.
It is ridiculous that you are asking me to forget about it.
They have been hamstrung by the ‘terms of reference’ or ‘the framework’ of the Water Act 2007.
The scientists even warned them several times that: And this is a direct quote Luke: One of many similar quotes:
“While the best
available information and analysis underpin this work, the Authority recognises
the limitations of the available data and the capacity of any modelling exercise.”
and:
“While the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (the Authority) is charged with
developing a Basin Plan for the Minister’s consideration, this occurs within the
framework of the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth). The Commonwealth Parliament
in 2007 and 2008 clearly laid out the general objectives of the Water Act, and
prescribed how the Basin Plan was to be developed. The Water Act requires
the Authority to determine the volume of water required to maintain and
restore environmental assets, using best available science and the principles of
ecologically sustainable development. ‘
So that is in the text isn’t it?
Because I don’t believe that I should quote all of them in this arena, my offer still stands.
Please let me repeat. I have no complaint with the historical data or indeed with most of the raw data input that is related to climate and inflows.
I believe that in most cases, they have done an excellent job with data compilation.
Please let me repeat,
My complaint is about the way this excellent work has been used to project one and only one assumption and the way these people have been hamstrung by the terms of reference in the Water Act 2007.
They had no choice but to come up with a number.
It doesn’t matter if it was 10%, 3% or any other percentage.
That was the only choice they were given and the only solution allowed.
I’m sure you must be aware that there are better options and better solutions?
AGAIN – is there specific text on climate analysis or scenarios do you disagree with. Not their application. If you don’t why have you been bagging the climate scientists?
You have been banging on about 2010/11 summer being wet and “unexpected”.
So is it you don’t necessarily agree with the climate science but how it is used?
Let’s try it this way.
If the Water Act 2007 said something like : ‘Australia has been in the grip of a crippling drought. Our water storage and conservation systems are not able to supply all the demands that are made on the system. Use the best avaialble science and the best available technology to devise ways to source more water, solve some of the environmental errors we have made and in particular the problems we have inadvertantly created in South Australia. These solutions should not involve taking productive water from established irrigation practices’
Do you think they may have come up with a different answer?
They could easily use all the same information they have now, because most of it that doesn’t involve hijacking from peanuts like Grafton, is perfectly OK.
The genuine scientists and researchers were quite happy to admit that their work can be interpreted in different ways and that there were limitations to the modeling.
It’s just that the basic assumption and the basic task is different.
Does that help?
Whether you want to admit it or not Luke, these guys were tasked with using climate science and predictive modeling to come up with a SDL number.
They were tasked with proving the necessity to take water away from irrigation.
They had no other choice and were not allowed to come up with any other answer.
So yes, I don’t necesarily disagree with all the climate science but I vehemently disagree with the way it has been used.
OK – and that’s OK. But don’t suggest that the climate guys have no integrity on this issue.
But when you get into the MDBA – well that’s another matter. I’m amazed how much focused good climate work is being done in SEACI – it’s major progress in some respects.
So my issue if why you guys are not politically more organised to demand a more integrated process from the Commonwealth on water strategy.
Progress requires you have to narrow down to EXACTLY what bits you disagree on. And what you also do agree on so you can stop debating it over and over.
BTW yes – blow the barrages – but is that the end of it?
Because we are up against a limitlessly resourced bureaucratic machine, I can understand why you offer that advice.
We get very limited airplay but we are working on it.
Unfotunately some of S E A C I work has been hijacked by the MDBA and used inappropriately.
Its hard to not take the odd pot shot at the climate guys when they have been set up to appear as if they are arguing for a carbon tax and to take productive resources from business and regional communities.
Of course its not really them. But remember that energy companies and farmers are not evil environmental rapists either.
We generally agree (with the exception of Peter) that it’s a good idea to pull down the barrages and wipe out the European carp in the process. Queensland barramundi is on the menu and we know how sweet that can be.
So Debbie – with the finely balanced Federal politics – why don’t you have a joint working group that is working through the issues systematically?
As a rural Australian, I have a somewhat different approach. Rather than using political action to become more effective suppliants to government, hoping for a “more integrated process”, I advocate destabilising and finally removing the Federal Labor government, killing off the Greens as a parliamentary force, and wiping out the Watermelon bureaucracies.
But that’s just me.
We do Luke,
As you are probably aware, the Basin is a highly diverse area, encompassing many different valleys and regulatory systems.
Added to that, there are many different commodity groups that have differing needs and make different demands on the system.
Added to that, farmers and small business owners are fiercely independant people who have a well founded mistrust of politicians and representative groups.
Added to that, we have all been sidetracked by radical environmental groups who are trying to frame this debate as a battle between the environment and irrigated farming. (which is complete crap!)
Added to that, you have your peers (I think), climate scientists, being used as fall guys who appear to be arguing for a carbon tax and the confiscation of productive resources by a federal bureaucracy.
Added to that we have 4 State bureaucracies and several different water infrastructure companies and Snowy Hydro Limited who seem to be incapable of agreeing with each other.
Despite all that, amazingly, there is a working group plus several other representative organisations who are engaging with our federal politicians and the MDBA.
The major body is the Basin Communities Association (BCA) which was formed last October when everything really started to go pear shaped.
That in itself is amazing because until the Lower MDB (particularly Griffith in the MIA) roared up in protest and scared the crap out of both the Federal Govt and the MDBA, neither of them had any intention of listening to any reps from the MDB.
Unfortunately for them, they have come up with a Water Act that is attempting to solve the wrong problem and a plan that is all about taking water away from irrigated farming.
They will have to admit that they may have got it wrong and they may be trying to solve the wrong problem.
Can you imagine how difficult that is going to be for them?
We are doing our best to firmly but gently get them to that space.
Unfortunately in the public arena it still appears to be a battle between farmers and the environment.
That is a shame because it is polarising the 2 extremes and making it more difficult to insert some common sense into the whole sorry process.
I would highly recommend that anyone who is truly interested and concerned about the future of inland agriculture get in touch with the BCA and offer your support, either in expertise or in financial support.
Basin Communities Association Ltd at PO Box R1437, Royal Exchange, NSW 1225. or email here:
david.michaelis@basincommunities.com.au
PS!!!!!!!
I can’t believe I didn’t put this in!!!!!!!!
I would also very highly recommend you support the excellent work that Jennifer has done in trying to insert some common sense into the MDB debate.
She has worked tirelessly for some sensible outcomes that would ultimately benefit everyone, including SA if they would listen!
Thanks Jen for the work you have done and also for allowing this space for people to discuss their views.
Me too Robert and I’m a socialist. Nice to see Nick Greiner get the nod in NSW for infrastructure management.
Debbie – too pussy. Are you organised, unified and in there to make progress? If so you’d be demanding a seat at the table and a serious process to work through the issues. Frankly I don’t think you’re unified or organised.
I like Robert’s technique. Expect the green vote to increase with that sort of comment.
I certainly believe we have now politicised the upper levels of State and Federal public services to such a degree that it is inevitable that incoming governments will replace their departmental heads automatically on assuming office. i.e. all Australian governments, of all persuasions, have moved away from the Westminster system to a model more aligned with the USA. This is sad as it tends to favour party apparatchiks and toadies in the upper echelons of Departments rather than discipline professionals. But critics need to be careful they do not tar all public servants with the same brush as the departmental hierarchies. As I noted earlier in this thread, when Goss/Beattie came to power in Qld they believed that because Labor had been out of office for so long all public servants must have been “captured” by the conservatives. So they set about destroying the Public Service structure and morale – and they were very successful in their objectives. But it is plainly stupid to believe that the broad operational level of the public service is any different in its politics to a broad cross section of the community at large. Certainly in my own case having Beattie assume I was ‘captured by the tories’ was an insult, given that I first letter dropped ALP “how to vote” cards at the 1947 State election. So Robert, after you remove the Federal Labor government be careful should you then purge the ‘Watermelon bureaucracy’ at the operational level – as you could find you are losing many sympathisers, who are at the same time experienced discipline professionals who you might have valued in the process!
I’m still waiting for ONE sensible paper from CSIRO or BoM on AGW; Bill may be right but the rot seems to have penetrated further than just the tops of these organisations; having said that most of the garbage is coming from the likes of Steffen, Karoly and of course Flannels who are not part of the bureaucracies.
I blame Pearman, he turned the ship around.
So am I cohenite.
But Bill also has a point.
The garbage is definitely coming from high profile ‘environmentalists’ who seem hell bent on shutting down and locking up as much of Australia as they can.
They are being assisted by the Federal Government’s need to comply with international treaties.
They’re quite obviously happy to shamelessly hijack computer models and claim they are ‘settled science’, even when the authors of those models very definitely know the model’s limitations and even attempt to warn people not to consider them as magic doomsday prophecies.
Unfortunately a lot of the good guys get swept up in the wrong argument and start arguing for the Government, The Greens and the federal bureaucrats because they think they have been recognised and that their work will make some amazing difference to the world.
The Greens are quite obviously happy to wind people up to attack the very industries who supply reliable power to our homes, building supplies for the roof over our heads, food on our tables, reliable water supplies, jobs, positive GDP and the list goes on and on….
They tug at heart strings and polarise debates so that common sense gets completely lost somewhere!
Luke, you must have misunderstood me.
We are at negotiating tables and we are being heard (finally!) and it’s because we decided to stop behaving like polite and sociable people.
Unfortunately, because of the huge diversity of the Basin and a rather large number of competeing interests, it can be a bit like herding cats.
Numerous different basin communities across 4 seperate states along with 6 seperate bureaucracies and several infrastructure companies and untold farmer representative groups and commodity groups, makes it very easy for us to be divided and conquered.
Add to this the historical tendency for farmers to completely mistrust any representative group or politician and it becomes a very difficult task.
Having said that, because this one is so very serious, there is unity and there is progress.
Unfortunately our 2 biggest roadblocks now are that Wong and Taylor have been replaced by the ‘sweet talking nice guy approach’ of Knowles and Burke. In some ways we were better off with the other 2 because they were easy to dislike. Some of the rep groups are allowing themselves to be ‘sweet talked’ into believing that Burke and Knowles will look after them.
The second roadblock is that regional communities and farmers have been set against the urban green voter and they are never going to agree with each other.
The problem is unfortunately political not environmental or scientific.
I sincerely wish it wasn’t.
We will have to wage a political battle and we need help to do it because farmers are mostly extremely politically naiive.
Ever since I put my hand up to be a representative voice in this whole sorry process, I have become increasingly dismayed at the total lack of common sense.
I am also dismayed at how far behind the 8 ball we are because we were arguing about the ‘froth and bubbles’ rather than the real problem.
“Unfortunately, because of the huge diversity of the Basin and a rather large number of competeing interests, it can be a bit like herding cats.”
“Some of the rep groups are allowing themselves to be ‘sweet talked’ into believing that Burke and Knowles will look after them.”
As I said – disorganised and not unified. You should be working out what you actually agree on first and ploughing through this giga-issue in a systematic manner. You’ve abdicated your position to others. Yes I appreciate the enormity.
And you do need some semblance of environmental policy or your product will eventually face discrimination in the market place.
If you don’t have an agreed hydrological model of how the system works how can you possibly proceed? If you don’t agree on climate basics how can you have a hydrology model.
I find myself agreeing with Luke, we need a model or we can’t see ahead. Or at least it’s a starting point that we can all argue about.
That sounds perfectly reasonable.
You are trying to be logical, just as I have been and just as farmers always are.
Unfortunately this whole sorry process has nothing to do with logic.
They would’ve listened to people like Jen years ago if it was about logic and sound economics and sound science.
There are plenty of models. All valleys have plenty of them as do climate scientists and hydrologists.
All of them are good models but not necessarily good enough to be predictive and it’s not about hydrology or the climate anyway.
Haven’t you got that bit yet?
You still seem to be operating under the naiive belief that the process was about saving the environment.
It isn’t.
We don’t need a starting point to argue about el gordo, we’re all arguing about the wrong stuff already.
Why would you think there is no environmental policy Luke?
Who led you to think that was the case?
The environment has been a very important stakeholder in the MDB for at least 25 years and irrigators have given over substantial amounts of their water entitlements and indeed allowed themselves to be placed below the environment on the Water Sharing Plans, which means they get nothing until the environment has enough. They have therefore given away their access to water entitlements in low inflow years in favour of keeping the major rivers flowing.
Most of the good work that has been done is totally and deliberately ignored.
Perhaps you mean the way we grow your food?
Most of the stuff you have been told by the greens was fixed years ago.
It is very old news, that they shamelessly wave around anytime they think they need to boost their campaign against Agriculture. It nearly always works because people are so gullible.
Australian food standards are among the highest in the world. That does not mean that there isn’t room for improvement but it won’t be helped by the interference of a bureaucracy in Canberra.
That goes for the other ‘red herring’ that will undoubtedly raise it’s head again soon, salt.
There is a salt problem because the rivers themselves raise the salt.
Farmers and water engineers have done exemplary work in controlling this problem.
It has nothing to do with flushing. Flushing makes it worse, especially for SA.
A bureaucracy in Canberra is not equipped or qualified to address this issue either.
There is disunity and lack of organisation, there always has been.
It is however getting better, because we’re waking up to the real issues which are entirely political.
Let me repeat, if we could unify under an environmental, hydrological and engineering banner and use sound science and logic, there would not be a problem.
We have wasted years trying to do that.
We are united on those issues.
This whole problem was created by politics and it will have to be politics that will fix it.
When they’re finally listening, (and they are starting to) we can easily and readily insert the logic and the common sense.
Even though similar issues are involved, because this one doesn’t appear to affect urban areas, it doesn’t get the airplay that the carbon tax has received.
Just like the carbon tax has very little to do with the environment and will have no real benefit for Australia anyway….SO IS THE WATER ACT and the resultant MDBP.
Debbie, interesting and correct; this is not about models but you are only 1/2 right when you say it is about politics; the ALP are playing politics however what is driving this debate about AGW is ideology, green ideology and this ideology is summed up here;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html
The solution is simple; you must counter every argument you encounter with the answer that your priority is to do what is best for the people, for humans; it is not about nature and its stalking horse, sustainability; nature does not sustain humanity, overcoming nature sustains humanity; a healthy MDB is one which produces food for humans; the idea that a healthy MDB is one which does not benefit humans and is one which humans are excluded from is based on green ideology which prioritises nature.
Just ask yourself when you are confronted with proposals to shut off access to parts of the MDB: is this for nature or for humans?
And if you’re wondering why the work done by irrigators and the models done by engineers and different valleys are never seen anywhere?
It’s exactly the same reason that we don’t see work or climate models that don’t support climate change and AGW.
If you’re wondering why environmentalists sneer at farmers and love to paint them as uneducated, toothless, swearing, book burning, rednecks?
It’s exactly the same reason that genuine scientists are sneered at for being obstructive and sceptical if they dare to question whether the science is actually settled.
If you’re wondering why even though Jen is most definitely an environmentalist and cares about the environment, she is so often sneered at by the Greens and others….you guessed it…..same reason.
None of it has a single thing to do with logic or common sense.
I wish it did.
Now Debbie – back to the job – you have two choices really – assume the future climate is some subset or superset of the last 120 years or so of record – and use that as your test of variability in any hydrological model. The inherent reason I am suggesting you need a model is that you need to able to devise a system that copes with the interannual variation, decadal variation and various competing demands and different overall management scenarios for water. Otherwise how do you understand the implications of changes. How else can you do it?
If you can find extra water by blowing the barrages – well add in it in (or out) of the calculation.
Of course you might also look at SEACI’s research which shows you a record Millennium drought sequence with partial back attribution to changes in the STRi. You might also ponder CSIRO’s other climate change runs (for what they are worth). Given the uncertainties in that you can explore a future with the same or different rainfall patterns to now. Those choices are inherently political but still can be calculated. Or rejected.
I honestly don’t understand why you have not progressed more at this stage or have employed your own hydrologists to run some numbers for you.
Why is your argument not quantitative and seemingly only rhetorical?
Thanks Cohenite,
I agree, it is green politics without a doubt.
It isn’t just one side of politics that is guilty of pandering to them either.
In the face of rather overwhelming evidence, I no longer believe that shutting down parts of the MDB has anything to do with nature vs humans. I once did and I have always used your argument because like you, I believe absolutely that:
“priority is to do what is best for the people, for humans; it is not about nature and its stalking horse, sustainability; nature does not sustain humanity, overcoming nature sustains humanity; a healthy MDB is one which produces food for humans.”
You have no argument from me there. You have no argument from anyone in the MDB there.
This debate however has more to do with the Federal Government’s need to comply with International Treaties like Kyoto and Ramsar, their treaties with the WTO and UN and also their need to pander to the urban green voter, who have swinging vote power and unfortunately not a bloody clue.
That’s rather cynical of me I know, but nothing else fits.
It also fits with the nonsense going on with the carbon tax and numerous other legislative manouvres that have no real benefit for Australia, its people or its industries.
Look at poor Tasmania and see what they’ve done there.
The saddest part is they’re shamelessly using the good work of genuine people to prove their case.
They are also deliberately sidetracking the debate.
I would like to believe that it’s possible to be a good global citizen without needing to sell out Australia’s food security, food production, Agricultural Industries, Steel production companies, power companies, Forestry industries, fishery industries and the list goes on….
Apparently, that is not what the Federal Government believes.
Quantitative = science and rhetorical = political science.
Maybe Jen knows a hydrologist who could come to our aid without political bias?
“various competing demands”, so Dr luke intones in his best bedside manner; is nature a competing demand? If so, how so?
Duh Cohenite – dat’s a hard’un – let’s see if you had on median flows 120 google-litres available and Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice all wanted 30 GLs units each for irrigation and the red gums needed 20 GLs and Hicksville needed 25 – what might you do. (and yes the barrages are already blown).
Also tell us for above and below median flows?
So Debs – you don’t care if the Gwydir wetlands disappear or the MacQuarie marshes dry up i.e. fuck the birds – who needs ’em ? And all that means anything in life is money?
“fuck the birds?”
Careful Luke . Spanglers will be having canaries.
A drowning man will clutch at straws.
Sir Thomas More 1534
The red-gums, eh, luke; and who decides what the red-gums need or indeed whether the red-gums remain?
This is the point: humans progress by compromising natural process; every hospital, school, house, road and swinging night spot involves reducing the red-gum population directly or by proxy.
The greens would not only stop the expansion of current incursions but drastically reduce them; some greens would extinguish the human race.
That is a pathology.
This conversation about whether progress can paradoxically deliver better environmental outcomes has been done before:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/defining-the-greens-part-9/
The point here is that by wanting to reduce prosperity, which is dependent on compromise of nature, and forcing humanity back to a more primitive, ‘natural’ lifestyle the greens would cause more destruction of nature; contrary to the green propaganda, primitive societies are less concerned about environmental ethics and more concerned with survival; fretting about red-gums is the perogative of the decadent who has a thoroughly unnatural social infrastructure to support his cognitive dissonance.
Well Cohenite – obviously you are voting for zero google-litres to any wetlands. Fair enuff.
Let’em burn up. Who needs ’em. What would some lawyer type want with waterbirds and trees anyway.
So balance the remaining water allocation question then….
“Well Cohenite – obviously you are voting for zero google-litres to any wetlands. Fair enuff.”
That is not what I said; in fact I said entirely the opposite; an advanced society will always have enough latitude to preserve wilderness to a greater extent than a primitive one; do you really disagree with that?
Of course I care Luke,
What an odd accusation.
I live in the MDB environment and I love all of it (well maybe not the snakes…they’re just tolerated).
It is also true that we need a healthy environment to do what we do. We look after our environment and we always have.
I’m not sure why you’re insisting on bringing up the environment.
It isn’t actually what the problem is.
All our natural environmental assets, all the native flora and fauna, including an absolute explosion of life at the Macquarie Marshes, have all just proved they’re perfectly capable of surviving a drought.
If it wasn’t for irrigation systems and storage systems, SA would have been in a great deal of trouble as early as July 2006. The Murray would have been bone dry for quite some time.
The Murrumbidgee would have followed soon after.
It is actually humans and human assets that struggled and are still struggling.
And Luke,
What has led you to think that we have no quantitative models and that we have not got records of the last 120+ years or indeed that we haven’t worked out the needed changes?
We truly aren’t uneducated rednecks you know. I am aware we are presented that way in the media but it’s not actually true. I’m pretty sure I could find more uneducated, toothless rednecks in the cities than you will find out here.
We have done all of that. It has been presented and submitted just about everywhere you could possibly suggest.
What has caused some changes is straight out political activism with the threat of more to come if we’re just as unhappy with the MDBA’s next attempt.
They would do better to listen to the sort of advice you’re offering.
I sincerely wish they would.
It has not happened to this point.
Not from want of trying I can assure you.
Hi Bill Burrows
I read your post of 12:08 pm May 1st with great interest, and agree whole heartedly with your views. The Public Sectors in Australia have become highly politicised and compromised in the process..some more than others.
It is also interesting that name Goss is mentioned as he is the perssn who has/had been advising the Labour Govt down here in SA.,.along with others.
The changes in the PS dont appear to be for the better, and whilst the web sites and availability of information is far better than previously, it is also revealing as the paucity of rational policy and clear thinking, that is in the public interest, and value for money.
The list of examples almost endless. It is not just poor planning policy, and intiatives that have more to do with what seats are affected now and in the future, or Industry development policy that is all over the place, or, just a plain stupid waste of money and talent.
How absurd can it get when tax payers fork out money (>$100k all up each) for quality people to attend internationally ranked universities for Master degrees, that have already cost tax payers huge sums of money to attract here in the first place, but when Foley et al decide to have a targetted separation package scheme …these very same people are given packages,(another ca >$100k each), purely on the basis of where they currently happen to be.
The system that Goss et al have bestowed upon is that incompetent it cant even relocate these people eslewhere in the PS. Mind you, the recipients can believe their luck.
But is it a rational outcome in the Public interest. Never
Further, when you look inside some main agencies is simply frightening the way many senior positions are now occupied by people,who seem not to have a clue about people management skills, and in reality are behaving in the manner of the classic corporate psychopaths, and seem to be taking their cues from the belligerence of one or two accident prone Ministers, and indeed were probably appointed at the behest of their political mates.
Sure they can mouth the right words for public consumption but behind the scenes it something else.
Fortunately also behind the scenes also are a veritable army of good solid citizens trying their hardest to do the best for everyone….but they are in decline
“What has led you to think that we have no quantitative models and that we have not got records of the last 120+ years or indeed that we haven’t worked out the needed changes?”
May I see the Plan B web site then pls Deb.
And Minister for Truth does indeed speak the truth !
Can some of the others who are way better at web surfing than I am please offer links for Luke?
Because the local models, the engineering solutions, the refutations of the basic assumption in the MDBP are not part of the requirements in the Water Act 2007, you will not find them at any government funded sites Luke.
If you go to the submissions section of the MDBA site, you will find some of the info there.
If you go to some of the archive sites at NOW you will also find some of the info, gathering dust.
I dont know why you think the solution is in the science and the modeling Luke but you are more than welcome to try.
Maybe an outsider may find a magic missing piece that would convince the Green urban voter that development and progress does not necessarily mean that we dont care about the environment?
I know that most well informed politicians dont think that way, but that isnt the issue.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the advice you are offering except that you seem to think it hasnt been tried ad nauseum.
Just for a start, what do you think Jen has been doing for years?
‘Maybe an outsider may find a magic missing piece that would convince the Green urban voter that development and progress does not necessarily mean that we dont care about the environment?’
Barnaby Joyce is the man, a renown agrarian socialist. A joke is going the rounds that if Barnaby is proven right about climate change they will make him head of the Greens.
El Gordo,
I particularly liked his quip:
“if taxes could cool the planet, the place would be an icebox by now”
I have not been a Barnaby fan in the past. He is often portrayed as a rebel with outlandish ideas.
I have since changed my mind because he has obviously done his homework on the MDB issue and he has made the effort to understand where both sides of the argument are coming from.
He began last year by making some rather odd comments about the geography of the MDB and also the problems that it was facing. He has since publicly corrected those comments and he has also educated himself fully on the Water Act 2007 and the problems it has created.
He is one of the few politicians who have been brave enough to publicly say :
“Maybe we got it wrong”
I also enjoyed this piece from Barnaby,
He is obviously keeping his sense of humour intact.
http://barnabyisright.com/2011/04/29/barnaby-turnbull-is-1-spear-chucker/
If nothing else, Barnaby shoots from the hip 🙂
Thanks Debbie, a fun blog to stay in touch with.
Thanks Minister for Truth,
Another piece in this mind boggling puzzle!
It explains some of the absurd behaviour that we MDB residents are trying to understand and deal with.
So you’ve made your own engineering calculations but can’t easily point to them? hmmmm
And you don’t need science and modelling to work out the water allocation issue. You’re going to do it on the back of an envelope then. WOW !
Luke,
Go to Jens newest post.
It may help you to understand.
There is no shortage of information.
However there is not a government funded site.
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the MDB works under a single ruling entity and that all information would be collated neatly at a central office and a central website.
That would be a public service department or a large corporation that operates that way Luke.
It is not how the MDB operates.
Or to put it in your type of language: you are barking up the wrong red gum and f***ing with the wrong birds!
If you truly want to understand how it works and what information is available you will need to go to all 6 separate water bureaucracies, NOW, SHL, Victorian, QLD and SA government sites as well as MDBA. Then you need to go to the sites of all the different water infrastructure companies like MI, CIL, Murray Irrigation etc and after that go to sites run by NSWIC and NIC and then the Ag rep groups like NSWFF, NFF etc. After that you then need to go to the sites of all the different commodity groups and their industries like RGA and Sunrice and AWB. Also go to sites like lakesneedwater and numerous other similar sites that have been put together, even Peter Smith has his own site. Local councils are also stakehilders in MDB water and have their needs and their plans too.
When you have educated yourself about water policy and water management and also future plans for all the separate valleys you then need to go to the 4 separate submission sites, MDBA’s, Windsor’s and 2 Senate Inquiries.
OH….and definitely make sure you read The Water Act 2007 and its terms of reference.
When you’ve done all that, get back to me and we’ll discuss tactics.
BTW, it will end up having little to do with whether we agree about SEACI models or whether we believe in AGW and climate change 🙂
Exactly. But I’m interested in YOUR united industry site ! But it doesn’t exist does it? And this is the problem. Your problem. All your fellow travellers have their own views.
So makes it hard to please everyone doesn’t it? And so who does one listen to?
http://www.mirrigation.com.au
http://www.rga.com.au
http://www.sunrice.com.au
google CMA and go to Murrumbidgee catchment,
google RDA and go to murrumbidgee
google MVFFA
google water for rivers and go to murrumbidgee
google NVIRP
google Colleambally Irrigation
google Murray Irrigation and you will just about have the influences on my local industries covered.
You will also need to go to NOW and understand how the water sharing plans work.
You also need to understand the difference between the NWI and The Water Act 2007.
Oh and the new ones are BCA and MVSG. They have
the community input.
There is no shortage of onfo or science Luke.
That is not the problem.
It’s interesting how the failures of green theorising and superstition are being now being framed as a failure by productive people to form their own centralised bureaucracies and – god help us – their own models and factoids.
It’s not a bad strategy, really. Challenge your opponent to become more like you, with a slight flavour difference. Reminds me of when the urban luvvies advised conservatives, for their own good, to stick with Turnbull and the doctors’ wives.
Thanks Robert,
Exactly!
You still think there is a simplistic, centralised, bureaucratic solution Luke.
That is not how the MDB operates.
Do you believe it should?
If the Feds were truly interested in helping, they need to use some vision and think about being part of a progressive solution rather than adding to the problem.
We have information overload!
We have to work out what we want to achieve.
Also need to focus on the real problem so that we use the correct resources to solve it.
everything else including the science and hydrology models is simply froth and bubbles.
We have plenty of those.
Did I say I advocated a simplistic, centralised, bureaucratic solution.
But what we have learned is:
your dump on the climate researchers was ill considered and just a spray;
you don’t know what you want “We have to work out what we want to achieve.” – golly gee are we still at this point !!! Holy smokes ….
you in industry are far from unified;
science and hydrology are froth and bubbles you say – simply means you don’t want science – you want foggy wiggle room – you’re not committed to making any calculation you don’t know the answer to first;
seems to me it’s simply about an over allocated system, squabbling at every level, no clear objective, and lip service to any environmental objectives.
And you wonder why I’m cynical. And you want my tax dollars to bail you out or keep you consulting ad infinitum ….. sigh
Do I blame you – not really ….
maybe we should consign the MDB to the scrap heap and engineer northern Australia. So when Abbott and Campbell Newman get in ….
Luke,
The answer is not to cut it back and shut it down.
If we do that then your tax dollars will definitely be paying for people like me.
The Feds have muscled in and have no more idea than you do.
The MDB’s absolute strength is it’s diversity and it’s abilty to adapt.
Take that away and you will indeed consign it to the scrap heap.
We need to think progress and prosperity, not doom and gloom.
The science is being used to preach doom and gloom, we should be using it for future growth and prosperity.
Why would you re engineer northern Australia when it’s much cheaper to upgrade and re engineer the MDB?
Stay with program Luke.
Did you check the websites?
Did you notice there is enough information to choke most people?
A hissy fit because people dare to point out that climate research is being used inappropriately is just a hissy fit.
OK Debs – I’ll back you then. Just tell me you’re getting somewhere.
Yes we are Luke.
It is not going to be quick and easy, but we are getting somewhere.
We definitely need to stop preaching doom and gloom.
We also must stop thinking cut down and shut down.
History teaches us that is a very bad idea!
Think of progress and prosperity.
Think about fixing up obvious mistakes….we have definitely made some.
Think about using the best available science and smart, innovative technology to source more water storage and conservation to supply increasing demands and key environmental asets.
Ask why we’re using an international treaty to solve an Australian issue?
Ask why there is $12billion of your taxpayers’ money set aside to buy water entitlements and then just flush them out to sea? What’s the return on your investment if they do that?
Ask why there are several more billions set aside for regional development yet the Water Act 2007 and the MDBP are aiming at shuttting down large tracts of regional Australia?
The more people who get those messages, especially in urban areas, the faster this whole woeful process will be solved.
We can agree that the Water Act 2007 must be dumped so we can save $12 billion. No point in spending taxpayers money to buy water during a strong IPO.
Luke,
Have you read the Briscoe submission that Jen highlights at her latest post?
It does outline the basic dilemna that we’re facing with some good solutions that the Feds and the MDBA need to consider.
Your thoughts?
Yes but what does it mean in any practical detail?
The government is getting bad advice on climate change and weather. Their models are flawed and cannot be taken seriously.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=931
More flawed advice, sea levels to rise 1.6 m by 2100.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sea-levels-rising-higher-and-faster-20110504-1e8j7.html
Total hocus!
Luke,
Practical detail is useless if the basic assumptions and the basic goals are leading us in the wrong direction!
The advice they are using is flawed and Jen’s newest post highlights that it is probably deliberate.
It is not the data collection that is flawed, it is the way it has been inappropriately used and also cherry picked.
We don’t need any more models and details and science or anything else to start making some good practical decisions.
We have plenty of those and they are important.
What we need is some pro active and progressive goals!
We instead have a government and a bureaucracy that are preaching doom and gloom and effectively putting the brakes on anything that would be smart and practical.
They are in the process of making some extremely dumb decisions in an effort to pander to their International Treaties and the urban green voter.
I deeply wish that ‘practical’ had something to do with it!